The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title: An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 Author(s): Kevonne Small; William Adams; Colleen Owens; Kevin Roland Document No.: 222023 Date Received: March 2008 Award Number: 2006-JP-FX-K058
This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies.
Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
I An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
Final Report
Kevonne Small, JD., Ph.D. William Adams, MP.P. Colleen Owens Kevin Roland
URBANINSTITUTE I’ Justice Policy Center
The W Urban report guidance at Policy Finally, helping Third, study. contained Washington. in generously Second, invaluable research. The First, Acknowledgments represent the Institute, This
Opinions © wwwurban Washington, 21D0
of An URBAN Justice the Institute, these
Trafficking
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 2008 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Office Analysis M authors report we Urban and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. manuscripts. Street The we Center CSEC we interviews Policy we
Tina INSTITUTE Bradley Katherine to are its org
are Urban in the DC expressed insights of expertise Justice granted would the NW would would trustees, was Institute. this 2lJD37 indebted D.C., Juvenile of grateful Center at Frundt, official victims and Urban Federally h Urban the report. prepared
Miles, Institute like like area Policy provided gained Chon. like Violence us and in or Street to to position Institute an Justice everyday Dr. to to who to its this Deputy the our assistance acknowledge informational express President/Executive Uenter Prosecuted acknowledge Dunworth in Institute, under funders. CSEC Outreach graciously a research document this Protection and framework project or were Director, meeting cooperative our Delinquency policies service throughout and and partners vital appreciation CSEC Coordinator. team Dr. interview participated are Act many Dr. Dr. Polaris for from providers to TeiTence of those of for Janinc Cases Zwcig this the the agreement at individuals Director, 2000 this individuals this Prevention, Polaris analyses Project for research. U.S. of to Since study: Zweig, Polaris study, in provided Dunworth, and this the the a Department Polaris Project focus federal advocates the study. authors, number for of as Senior Project who U.S. federal Passage well their general group Project Director The who are prosecutors Department 2006-JP-FX-K058 Advisor as and contributions from on of CSEC information a meeting provided of oversight critical the do Justice, the of the front not for case the Victims who greater of for review this us necessarily Justice and the Justice. lines data to obtained this with study this Urban of with This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Ana1yss of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims B of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center The CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER m 5.2 4.2 4.1 5.1 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.1 2.2 Urban of An Institute, Implications Research Practitioners Key Summary Predictive Descriptive Research This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Trafficking Prosecutor Highlights United been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis 5. 4: 3. 2. 1. and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. CONCLUSIONS ANALYSIS REVIEW INTRODUCTION PRACTITIONER Findings Justice States of Questions Methods of Models and of Interviews Federally Analyses Findings for Comprehensive Suggestions Actions Policy Violence OF Policy, OF of THE Center Prosecuted Case FEDERAL to AND Protection Practice MEETING Combat LITERATURE for Outcomes NEXT Future Literature CSEC and Act CSEC CSEC CONTENTS STEPS Research Research of Cases 2000 Review CASE Since DATA the Passage of the Victims 69 69 66 71 60 44 60 56 12 18 16 12 10 3 3 I Figure Figure Figure Figure The Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figures Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit
Exhibits
W List
(Irban of 3-19 3-18 3-17 3-16 3-15 3-14 3-13 3-12 3-9 3-11 3-10 3-8 3-7 3-6 3-5 3-3 3-4 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-1 3-3 of
An Exhibits Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) lraftickmg Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Type Disposition Type CSEC CSEC Criminal Criminal CSEC Change Number Demographic Mean Defendants Defendants CSEC Arresting CSEC Major Disposition Case Linked-Cohort OLS Logistic Federal Defendants Justice
of and of of Processing Regression and Number Offender Charge. Offense, Reasons Arrests Federally Suspects Counsel Counsel in Statutes of Policy History History Regression Violence
Agency Figures Number Defendants of in in of Characteristics CSEC Cases CSEC by Criminal of 2004 (‘enter Design for Prosecuted 1998—2005 Education, Investigated for for Pertaining Trends for for Model Cases Offense Protection for Case of CSEC CSEC Child all Filed Model Cases. Cases, CSEC Defendants per for CSEC Filed Matters Predicting for Declinations, Type. CSEC in Analyzing Sexual Case Offenses. Defendants, 1998—2004 to Predicting Federal Act 1998—2004 1998 Cases, in U.S. of in the Defendants. Federal Defendants of U.S. by Cases 1998 Commercial in District Exploitation 2000 2005 Prison Federal 1998 CSEC’ Cases I)istrict 1998 Federal 2005 Since Conviction 2005 Criminal 1998—2004 2004 Court Sentence Cases. Filed 2004 1998 Prosecutors the in Court CSEC Cases Sexual Charge, Passage with in Matters 2004 1998—2005 of U.S. with Length Cases Filed CSFC a Exploitation of CSEC 1998 District a the CSEC in Imposed Defendants Victims U.S. 2004 Charge, Court Charge. District of on Children Charged 1998 CSEC 1998 Court 2005 n Youth and with 2005 for a a The B-6 B-S B-4 B-3 B-2 B-i A-S A-4 A-3 A-2 A-i Appendices Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure
Figure . (Jrban 3-25 3-24 3-23 3-22 3-21 3-20 of An Institute, Trafficking This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. The SAS Descriptive Research Relevant Prosecutor International Glossary Umted Review Reference US. Time Mean Mean Mean Type Mean Justice of Federal Output District and of Series Fine Federally Processing Probation Prison States’ of Sentence Policy Violence Statutes of Methods List the Informational Imposed Tables Commercial Justice for Model Court Actions Sentence Literature Actions Center Prosecuted Time Sentence Time Defining Protection in for Statistics Measuring for CSEC Related Series Federal Related for for CSEC on Sexual Interview CSEC for CSEC CSEC Pool Cases. Act the Model Resource to CSEC Data Offenses, Impact to of Commercial Cases CSEC of Exploitation Offenses, CSEC Offenses. 2000 i998—2004 CSEC Guide Analysis Offenses, Since of Center Federal 1998 Cases the 1998 1998 Sexual of Passage 1998 2004 Children in Initiatives 2004 2004 initial Exploitation -2004 of the (CSEC) Stages on Victims CSEC of of Terms Processing Children Prosecutions and Youth in
Table
Table
Table
The Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table List
Urban
7
6c of
6b 6a
6
5 4
3c
3b
3a
3
2c
2b
2a
2
I
of
An Tables Institute,
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Trafficking
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice.
(Demographics)
Defendants
2004
(Demographics) Defendants
Defendants 2004
(Demographics)
Defendants (Information
Defendants
Defendants attorneys.
serious
attorneys,
Suspects
Defendants attorneys.
Suspects
Suspects attorneys,
2005
Suspects
attorneys.
Suspects attorneys.
Suspects 2005
Suspects
(with
Suspects Suspects
Justice
(Appendix
of
(Demographics)
(Demographics)
and
(Basis
(Disposition
a
Federally
filing CSEC
Polic’
in
in
in
in
Violence
in
in
in
in
in
1998
1998—2005
1998—2005
1998
1998—2005
1998—2005
in
in in
in
in
in
Child
in
Child
Child
CSEC
Child
Child
Child
CSEC
criminal
for
at
charge)
cases
cases
cases
cases
cases
cases
cases oliènse
(‘enter
arrest)
Prosecuted
declination)
2005 B-5)
2005
Sex Prostitution
Pornography
Prostitution Sex
Pornography
Protection
criminal
of
criminal
filed
filed
filed
filed
filed
filed
filed
matters
the
(Basis
(Basis
(Basis
(Disposition
(Disposition
Exploitation
(Disposition
Exploitation
as
in
in criminal
in
in
in the
in
in
CSEC
U.S.
matters
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
matters
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Act
for
for
for
lead
investigated
criminal
criminal
criminal
criminal
of
declination) Cases
declination)
declination)
district
district
district
district
district
district
district
charge)
matter)
2000
of
criminal
of
of
criminal
declined
investigated
the
the
the
Since
matters
matters
court
court
court
court
matters
court
court
court
matters
criminal
criminal
criminal
&
the
matters
matters concluded
for
for for
for
for
for
for
for
declined
Passage
investigated
prosecution
declined
&
investigated
a a
a
a
any
a
a
matter)
matter)
matter)
concluded
CSEC Child
Child
Child
CSEC
CSEC
declined
investigated
CSEC
of
by
for
the
Sex
for
Pornography
rsiuincharge, Prostitution
charge.
charge,
charge.
U.S.
prosecution
&
by
Victims
charge.
prosecution
for
&
Exploitation
by
concluded
attorneys.
U.S.
concluded
prosecution
&
U.S.
1998
1998
]
concluded
998
attorneys.
1998—2004
attorneys,
charge,
by
2004
2004
2005
by
by
1998—2005
by
charge.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
by
1998 U.S.
(most
by
1998—
1998
U.S.
1998
U.S.
1998— 2004 The Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table • Urban 9b 9e 9a 9: $c 8b 7c 8a 8 7b 7a of An Institute. Trafficking This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. 2004: processing average average Defendants Defendants Defendants Defendants Defendants (Demographics) Defendants Defendants 2004 Defendants Defendants 1998 1998 Defendants Defendants Justice of and (Demographics) average 2004 2004 Federally processing processing oiy(‘enter Policy Violence time adjudicated (Demographics) adjudicated adjudicated adjudicated adjudicated in adjudicated in in adjudicated adjudicated processing eases cases cases Prosecuted and Protection time time sentence filed filed tiled in in in in in in and and in in in in time in SCCases CSEC U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Act U.S. U.S. US, sentence sentence imposed and district district district of district district district district district district district district 2000 sentence imposed imposed Since court court court court court court court court court court court the imposed for for for for for for for for for for for Passage a a a a a a a a Child a a Child Child CSEC a Child CSEC Child Child Child Child Child of Pornography Prostitution Sexual Pornography Exploitation Prostitution charge. the charge, Prostitution Sexual Pornography Victims Exploitation 1998 199$ Exploitation charge, charge. charge, charge, charge. charge, 2004: 2004 charge. charge, 1998—2004 1998—2004: average 1998 1998— 1998—2004 charge, 1998 1998 2004: 2004 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysis of Federally ProsecutedCSEC CasesSince the Passageof the Victims W of Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000
List of Acronyms
AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics CAST Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking CEOS U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section CSEC Commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth CST Child sex tourism DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DIIS Department of Homeland Security DUACS Division of Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Services EOUSA Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys DOJ U.S. Department of Justice ECPAT End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FJSRC Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center GEMS Girls Educational and Mentoring Services ICAC Internet Crimes Against Children ICAID Interpol Child Abuse Image Database ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ILO International Labour Organization IOM International Office of Migration IRISEM Intemational Repository of Institutions against Sexual Exploitation of Minors LAYSS Los Angeles Youth Supportive Services, Inc. LEASEC Law Enforcement against Sexual Exploitation of Children NCMEC National Center for Missing and Exploited Children NGOs Nongovemmental organizations OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ORR Office of Refugee Relocation PROTECT Act Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today TVPA Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNICRI United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime USAO U.S. Attorney’s Office USMS U.S. Marshals Service USSC U.S. Sentencing Commission WTO United Nations’ World Tourism Organization
The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Uenter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysisof FederallyProsecutedCSEC CasesSince the Passageof the Victimsof S Fraffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Each year, many children and youth are victims of commercial sexual exploitation involving acts of sex trafficking, prostitution, sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade and early marriage, pornography, stripping, and sexual performances. Reportedly, more than two million children worldwide are commercially sexually exploited every year, with as many as 300,000 of them being victimized in the United States (Estes & Weiner, 2001). The commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth (CSEC) is a fundamental violation of human rights that has devastating effects on its victims. Victims face violence, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and often are arrested and detained as criminals.
To help deter the spread of this crime, to punish its perpetrators, and to protect its victims, the U.S. Congress passed legislation aimed specifically at acts associated with CSEC, the most notable being the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000. Though several years have passed since the introduction of CSEC-focused legislation, we are just beginning to understand the impact of this legislative effort.
To increase understanding of this problem and how it has been addressed through legislation, the Urban Institute, a non-partisan social and economic policy research organization, along with Polaris
Project an anti-human trafficking organization based in the United States and Japan, were awarded a cooperative agreement from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct a 12-month study on CSEC in the United States. The purpose of this research was to conduct a national analysis of federal prosecutions of CSEC-related cases from 1998 through 2005. This document reports our research findings. Our goal was to answer to the following questions:
Is the United States enforcing existing laws related to CSEC?
B What are the key features of successful CSFC cases? What factors predict convictions in cases? What factors predict sentence length?
• Have U.S. courts increased penalties associated with sexual crimes against children?
• What, if any, are the effects of CSEC legislation on service providers who work with these victims?
The Urban Institute, Justice Policy center This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysisof FederaMyProsecutedCSEC Cases Sincethe Passageof the Victimsof W Fraffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000
To answer these questions. the research team conducted a literature review, informational interviews with four federal prosecutors. and statistical analyses of federal CSEC eases tiled by U.S. Attorneys from 1998 through 2005. These cases are contained in the Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC) database that has been managed by the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center for the past 10 years. Though the analysis of CSEC cases contributes to the fields knowledge of enforcement aspects of the CSEC problem, this report goes further. We also assess the inter-relationship between enforcement and services provided to victims. This connection is of critical importance to CSEC providers and victims. To better understand it. we also conducted a half-day meeting with eight Washington. D.C. area CSEC service providers to inform study findings.
In terms of the report organization. Chapter 2 briefly summarizes the literature on CSEC in the United States. In Chapter 3. we present our analysis of federal CSEC case data. Chapter 4 provides an overview of what we learned from (‘SEC service providers, and Chapter 5 summarizes our study findings and presents our suggested next steps for the field. Attached Appendices include supporting documents (e.g., comprehensive literature review, glossary of CSEC terms, detailed description of research methods. and interview guide) that provide additional context for this report.
In conclusion, this review and assessment is intended to provide: (1) the field with a thorough description of federal CSEC case data contributing to the knowledge that we have about such cases; (2) law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies with information that may be useful during CSFC investigations and prosecutions: and (3) policy makers with a means of assessing the effects of legislation aimed at combating CESC.
The Urban Institute. Justice Policy Center commonly The Crime Act 2.1.1 n the and by study better this presented committed We CSEC, Governmental involved 2.1 the legal terms. youth
CHAPTER . highlighting L’rban literature of illuminate crime remedies dataset. understand (CSEC) Control 2003, here, followed Prosecutorial Prior United As United This Trafficking An coordinating Institute, in and This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not called by been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) early Analysis chapters prosecutors we 2. chapter and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. on to U.S. prosecute the and Organizations in aimed States REVIEW the the States highlight CSEC by as the the the Justice scope Law citizens and awareness passage U.S. 1996, of White United briefly Remedies context 3 at Legislation the Federally Actions Violence and caii Enforcement protecting of its addressed government Policy the the efforts OF actions be abroad. 4. offenders. Slave of reviews States in (NGOs). efforts United Specifically, of found THE the to Center and which Protection Prosecuted CSEC of Traffic Aimed Combat Victims victims taken from crimes This various Other LITERATURE in of the States Act agency It law First, Appendix the offenses also roughly section literature to Act, at of Act Tools CSEC involving enforcement, of of the United CSEC combat began government Combating we 1994 helped efforts, Trafficking this of was information 2000 discuss frames to Cases in 1998 crime. A (also developing on States enacted End the CSEC of us CSEC and the Since through United this form known the the significant €EC prosecutors, agencies commercial the to and within in report, presented structure Exploitation using combat the the efforts Violence 1910 its States as 2005. Passage boundaries strategy the the the and along changes to CSEC. of of and United A and Crime Mann here sexual fight domestic various of the Protection fuller of with the service to the is Children present against paying Act in of address Bill). States, exploitation intended tools Victims and a U.S. NGOs data glossary and of providers The more put Act particular 1910 study forced we legislation as international CSEC. Today of across to in well Mann (TVPA) included detailed and of help place and of prostitution key are as (PROTECT) The children the the Act, attention the readers acts against to working of CSEC Violent review country. U.S. in findings Non prevent 2000 the and plan in to of 3 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysisof FederallyProsecuted(‘SEC Cases Sincethe Passageof the Victimsof Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 4 keeping with the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed in 1865 (Katyal. l993). however, the Act did not explicitly protect minors until it was amended in 1978. Amendments passed in 1986 and 1994 further protected minors from slavery-like practices. These amendments extended the reach of the Act in three important ways: (1) The Act became gender neutral focusing on both males and females; (2) Specific attention was paid to the transportation of minors, defined as those under the age of 18: and (3) The amendments broadened the Act to prosecute against “any sexual activity” not just prostitution. The FBI investigates possible Mann Act cases and refers them directly to U.S. Attorneys. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) located within the Criminal Division supervises the prosecution of these cases (Criminal Resource Manual, 2007).
The Crime Bill passed in 1994 includes a provision that specifically addresses the growing concerns about child sex tourism. This provision, known as the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act. makes it a crime to travel outside of the United States with the intent of engaging in sexual activity with a minor. While this provision represents a significant step towards fighting child sex tourism, few cases were prosecuted using this law (Andrews, 2004). As a result, the Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002 was passed to address these concems. Perhaps most significantly, the Act removed the intent requirement for individuals and criminalized the actions of sex tour operators (Fraley, 2005).
Despite what preceded it, the TVPA of 2000 is considered by most to be the seminal piece of U.S. legislation leading the fight against CSEC. The TVPA federally criminalized human trafficking focusing on prevention, protection, and prosecution. Educational and public awareness campaigns were authorized through its focus on prevention. In order to better protect victims of severe forms of human trafficking, which include both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, the TVPA authorizes access to benefits and social services such as housing. educational programs. job training, health care, and legal services. In addition. non-U.S. citizen victims may be able to obtain a T-visa classification allowing them to become temporary U.S. residents. The FVPA was significant in extending the broad range of services and benefits traditionally available to refugees to victims of trafficking in the United States. Adding teeth to the TVPA is its provision on prosecution and punishment. Specifically with respect to CSEC,
For background information onhow the Mann Act applies to states, ve suggest reading about the Ciil Rights Act of 1964 and the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The Urban l,rstitute, ,Justicc’Policy Center The Office of PROTECT activities produce Govemment created gave 2003 territorial incarceration strengthen prosecutors appropriate sensitive model national in legislation years coercion, commercial
traffickers . State how Urban victims reauthorization in to policies, the a 2 and One In Trafficking a An prison summit For For Monitor protocols of Senior jurisdiction Jnstitute, but yearly the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 2002, and who been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) system Act Analysis (Protecting the to formed full full sex Efforts year the and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. from the ability take policy (TVPA and text text President’s laws/statutes exploit Policy act ability on report the victim later, and Justice deals 15 of of for and a the legislation in can of to U.S. of more the legislation. of to to often Combat 2001. investigation Federally Combat Violence Fact TVPRA Operating Congress children to Our to the receive the prosecute Trafficking with is 30 Policy Department Congress sue between proactive Interagency TVPA years adversely government Children, Sheet. to and child their Trafficking see: about Trafficking coordinate Genter a Prosecuted Protection of under enacted enforcement (Shared sentence Group Victims Americans (TVPRA 2003 victims 2000). traffickers the on and approach protecting affect 2002). of the U.S. ages Task to prosecution. expanded Justice (SPOG) Reauthorization the Act Hope age CSEC federal in of fight and in government of the of Force Persons PROTECT life of Persons, abroad in of strategies. to 2003) offenders. 14 children handling International 2000 child (DOJ), Cases federal these 14 in on efforts and U.S. — prison. using çgi-bm trafficking and a who created Fact sexual Since 18 Protection cases, 2006). cabinet-level efforts Office district from efforts Act to (2) of years (5) Recommendations commit force, Sheet. query If combat the child enforce exploitation. 2 use educational of et (4) the prostitution. The to of old, Act Passage I)c al.. to 2003 court, in fraud, establish vertical 2006). combat crime prostitution Justice persons combat acts of SPOG 2006: I trafficking the 08 task existing 2003. (Public mandated 6.tm’ of or of trafficker does The prosecution Programs force, campaigns child the CSEC Fraley. coercion meets victim-focused trafficking see: (Assessment The A combined not Victims were Law key laws. cases (U. sex PROTECT c chaired /lii the and quarterly involve 2005). is finding S. made 108-21) tourism for (3) (OJP) because eligible Attorney against of Department increased IS\ strategies in the encourage passage by of persons, Moreover, to: force, was hosted n victim- and purposes to the U.S. to Act (CST) (1) for of sex follow-up further General that Secretary maximum inequities expanded up fraud, where develop of tourism. a and of both the to the of State 20 or to a at on exploitation. children resource The Review. Criminal Attorney’s U.S. CEOS against CSEC. combat 2.1.2 assistance TVPRA in grant contains dollars) Australia, home • Persons. Urban cities programs and and 79. center The A child 6 CSEC. The While Govern The Trafficking in An included Examples In For Sec the Division few Institute, 445 abroad. programs ten with This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not NCMEC Japan the Office been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 1996, 2006). Analysis for full Fralcy. Innocence TVPRA most trafficking. and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. (2005). notable years National significant. the Additionally, text in high for the (Fraley. of eiital pilot (USAO) public, Justice severe both In website A. U.S. and of state cities in of in volumes C/il/il fact, the of agency Germany, Federally Violence the Agency programs Congress Lost deal Center 2005 parents, Trafficking and include: headed incarceration Policy has 2005). with Sex it United train with initiative, is a local many efforts of reauthorized Touri.s,n “CyberTipltne not for 30 law established Action Detroit, Center Prosecuted Protection NGOs these ythe by and to issues Victims law States t’:.hntcli’i.ncchR&de,cu years the Missing enforcement, government establish l.egisiation are three passage crimes. Michigan; enforcement which penalties in and FBI’s of maximum discussed (Assessment the Protection (lie Act ‘that CSEC CSEC. the years and law Exploited residential began of United and Crimes TVPA of Under ihe As Harrisburg, Exploited enforcement agencies 2000 for Cases or federal others public Within Reauthorization a here. incarceration to a in part CST i/Ic Child States fine through Against of combat 2003, Since about PRO nuy rehabilitative of U.S. legislation are Pennsylvania; in Unit DOJ’s Children of the TECTAct: call the the the working up is on (ECU) Government human 2007. Children to the initiative. issues world, Passage Act to CSEC. 7 Criminal in report one largest of (NCMEC), the within alone surrounding Dot’s With and 2005, trafficking to :hi’2eiui facilities suspected compared million United of squad DOJ’s combat Atlantic NCMEC the ii the U.S. that Division see: respect Rea// Efforts NCMEC. Victims txipdi and yen marks States, the Instances government task Civil for City, the Protect?, and ihtwelve with sexual to to with (roughly and victims. is forces various New The of Rights expanded CSEC, Combat h U.S. the the CEOS the of involvement exploitatn ECU Jersey. St. child PROTECT were U.S. John’s It initiative $8,341 Division forms the which serses years established Trafficking sexual effort victim formed 2005 Law of of as in was U.S. to from a Act and in 6 (I Originall) degree decision The violation sexual kidnapping predators, from and Internet (Shared addition. piloted These (Fulton enhance system Children notably, coordination, kidnapping. t involved pornography, violations sexual
CEOS created B ass Urban the one corn and. of data through activity, collaborates of in which place Department County). felon) Operation in predators). The Hope Trafficking An accessed it identification, with or Kidnapping OJJDP (ICAC) is in court Institute, Fulton human meant as 1987 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) sad will a Analysis efforts to crini Office well DOJ’s and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. for respect and the will International order. sUc another iolenee. fhc then interstate online to the miii funds County. Georgia task traffickers, ahuse, transportation resources as Predator stealing collect enforce Justice to and is There injurt An of with of of Civil clout be funding defined under to combat at: forces Juvenile 0cc. homeland included Federally direct Violence protection, or shared CSEC, hip: and the Policy ol’ or rape. Georgia Rights aimed are data circumstances the federal threat et is children. as: to can international 93 and dictionars.lasc international and services capture four CSEC. an a!., crime It ii. prevent with on Justice result OJJDP USAO’s C Prosecuted Protection or of nd the at initiative Division is enter staffing 2006). Security risk with criminal significant and ntnnidauou. women udes reducing is supporting since taking usual law in As Wise such factors in a prosecution and and funds taking plans enforcement, capital “kid It an tt to ol caim travel imprisonment the Act hieh is CSEC between ins child (DHS) or Delinquency respond as a statutes prosecute office, the also person due oh is collaborative to national Although efforts of children indicating a the (death fauh2 the child cs demonstration to duplicate sex demand 2000 to Cases person responsible sOnic to sexually development I they against n’:s efforts. U.S. in relating to penaltt tourists, that identify, asp’tsp:d Scanclinas violations it court An complaint i juvenile interstate Since related l so i work iNc whether Immigration Prevention for comprise hisher lint taken it I harm The networks offense abuse personnel, impulse in to the CSEC necessart and criminal for nationally investigate kidoapping&t)pe ian doc.s communities the program to delinquency sil! data Passage of of for prosecuting line the other a languages. in children, exploitation and not particular a Operation (or federal and some the (OJJDP) act system. regional such htthe that iclun for and has: front a predatory and such of providing parent purpose in to stales. reporting and coupled the Customs as I NYC’ hut the provide law reedom state as and purpose and across the : the child human Victims located data control holding arrest noss Predator: ak I es of related on international ing en victimization. and of and first Internet ‘a individuals 01’ children applies l’ebntarr services collection ilh be though trafficking is and the engaging leadership. Enforcement mo ua foreign the local another trafficking kidnappina of criminal of at-risk within to hiding country. person enient. parent (1) its to the child Crimes 14, agencies adults and to kind, the national sictnn a of DOJ I 2008). in and (including in parental since or victims ‘a clii br crimes. obscenity. can Most CSEC. ill, uarJijnl Atlanta criminal as In and ransom. is d Against (ICE) tracking is surs or cccli all raise in being to also CSEC the Cs 7
Catholic
The accessed
Immigration
that
raise
(Shared homeless
human
launched
fight
U.S.C.
larger
Criminal
With
They
for than
from promote
Justice
partnership
Interpol Forces,
“Megan’s
S establishment
(Irban
sex
assists
half
awareness
against
respect 2001
also picture. Conference
online
trafficking
§
trafficking Statistics
10
In
Hope
and
Researchers
Trafficking
An efforts
The
cooperation
the
1591).
Code. (58
Two
youth
Institute,
found
addition,
juvenile Law”)
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not to
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s)
Analysis
with
other
Megan’s Service
at CSEC
Rescue
to percent)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. 2005
lead
International, of
htlp
to
children,
of
through Chapter Therefore,
(USCC).
that
NCMEC.
Program a
voluntary
databases; 9
agencles)
Justice
and
build
human
of
single
(Motivans
and
by victims
agca./o.
the
La
of
within
and
from
of
children.
and
of
CSEC.
offering
Federally
Violence
Department
the
global
daiabase its
help
77
the
Restore
only
Policy
coordination web trafficking
organizations,
in
the
while
FBI,
Youth
by
on 58
DHS. et on
ORR
matters
(3
an
(2)
The
Bureau
and
one
al., portal
percent
3
establishing
Peonage. intelligence
May
programs Center
is
effort
Prosecuted
Protection
he
the
U.S.
the Campaign
with these
a
and
2006).
Development
of Kyckelhahn. HI-IS
sex statutes
2,
stationino
of
creation
opened
to
and/or these the
2007).
Postal
The of
to providing
offender
of
health
on
data
access Family
Unaccompanied
Slavery,
Justice
shed
ORR
suspects such
Lutheran
Act
cross-border
(SI/C
statutes
their
on
BJS
are
provide
that
Inspection
were
of of
registry
light
and
child
all
of
as
operates
valuable,
2006).
and
a
used Statistics
Division.
2000
provided
legal
assistance
Cases
ICE
transitional
and
National publicly
Immigration
for
in
Human
on
directly
predators.
Youth case
(Ofhce
TVPA
to
offenses Trafficking
agents
status, violations
Refugee
Since
Service.
CSFC
Motivans
define
the
management
they
(BJS)
over
The
Services
available
Child
of Services
and
addresses
Unaccompanied
offense the
Refugee
working abroad
the living
Minor
cases,
only
created
human
HIIS
$3
Passage
recently U.S.
Auomcy
of
Victim
and
in
ns’° million
Program.
provide
federal (HHS)
Services
and
cases,
Persons
state
Office Bureau
to
and
Secret
sex
Kyckelhahn
with
trafficking
as
and
work
of street
General
Identification
analyzed
a
(4)
sex
trafficking
the
ORR
in
23
result
is
the
human direct
(LIRS)
of
a
(FYSB)
Service,
Refugee the
(18
grants with
working
offender Victims
very
percent(l29
outreach
Refbgee U.S.
for
also
combining
U.S.C.
of
services were
and foreign
the
data
trafficking
small
(2006)
to
the
Citizenship
operates
is
of DOJ, The
State
of
Minors
to
fund
registry
System
taken
involved
Relocation
from
to
TVPA
children
§
glimpse help United
of
governments
runaway
found
to
the
suspects)
projects
1581-1594). of
Califoinia
the
victims
from
Program
the
combat
statutes
ICAC
ICE
of
(known
States (in
and
that Federal
in (18
Division
of
2000.
U.S.
(ORR)
the
and
and
that the
more
were
Task
as
to 8 US. counseling, with Night, to These to the USA, The family nonprofits, against individuals 2.1.3 and CSEC coordination, Investigative Office include: who
of S immigration services law Abolish Unaccompanied Urban organizations punishment CSEC may organizations enforcement, and Sisters reunification of the NGO The Other 1 An to the uinen:l rafficking For Special For Polaris be Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not the Slavery been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) commercial unaccompanied social who Analysis victims translation aa Criminal Naval variation housed officials.’’ more more and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Division communication, Action Offering governmental complexity ihigagainst fighting of further Project, Investigations, service \scl.rfIcL1n infomiation infoniiation Justice traffickersiexploiters. and and in Alien judges. of to are in to in a Federally of survivors services, Violence their Support, Trafficking sexual variety support HHS on combat gnisinvolved agencies the Policy organizations. Girls Children’s involved the alien on see prosecutors, facilities. Investigative USEC agencies Department is r,sn: the and exploitation ground, generally. Educational of Prosecuted Protection Center training and outreach, Vital of CSEC the children orgamzaiions \lsit capacities information (CAST), CSEC. in inform ncnpip.cml Diplomatic Services Voices, or UslCRl’s the in in hiip:’/www.acf.hhs.govehrochureunaccornpanied.htiii. researchers, staff offices and This of Act communities under Service, identification legal CSFC the In of in the and Labor, the listed, other at of addition, combating children. (DUACS) work and United providing sharing government’s IRISEM expertise, DUACS 2000 Mentoring age involved Protection Security Cases Breaking please Army criminal t and would ,lcl eighteen itm and victims States Since nthe on they weepossible). (where Among in DOJ’s and it that food, CSEC shelters Criminal Service lac in life almost not Services Project, justice also the their Free, anti-human protection United provides who efforts skills be Office shelter, these Passage speaks ehsiies. rvd training provide survivors every to of opeewithout complete to have States Investigative system Boat programming, identify the (GEMS), name to are for housing clothing, of of to state, prevent, been at: Department trafficking For organizations People It Victims the victims. the personnel; a of also a CSEC/trafficking few Victims apprehended more working need CSEC, Safe and speaks education, prosecute, Divtsion, SOS, among and of coniprehensie job and for a Horizon, and the of Crime. of wide and serve technical on Children effective riig and training, the such to State. work anti-CSEC many other a the U( Air prosecution range by medical and al basis daily as as the ofNGOs. the scope DFIS Force advisors others, victims ECPAT listing assistance protect of Coalition of Criminal the efforts care, of of 2 on 9 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysisof Federally ProsecutedCSEC Cases Sincethc Passageof the Victimsof Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 10 various committees and research projects: organize task forces and conduct advocacy, outreach, and public awareness campaigns. (Please see Appendix A for a detailed discussion on some of the work of these organizations.) Just as important as the activities NGOs accomplish on their own, are the activities they accomplish together. Anti-human trafficking and anti-CSEC organizations across the country came together in 2003 to host Breaking the Silence, the first national summit on CSEC (GEMS website, 2007). As a result of this summit, OJJDP allocated funding for additional research and data collection on CSEC (OJJDP Videoconference: Working Together to Stop the Prostitution of Children).
2.2 Highlights of Comprehensive Literature Rcvieii
Our review of the literature reveals that CSEC has been and continues to be focused on by the criminal justice community. policymakers, academics, advocacy organizations, and the international community. In Appendix A we include our comprehensive literature review as well as two tables that chart the activities both internationally and within the United States. Here, we highlight key points from our full literature review:
• A formal definition of CSEC was made widespread in the 1996 Declaration and Agenda for Action for the First World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children.
The most cited estimate of CSEC is from the report, The commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children In the US., Canada, and Mexico (Estes & Weiner, 2001) that states each year in the United States as many as 300,000 children are at risk of being sexually 3exploited.’ Research suggests that the average age a child first falls victim to CSEC is 13 or 14, and that in the United States, more often than poverty, family dysfunction, family sexual abuse, school or other social failures, the presence of existing adult prostitution markets, and drug dependency by family members or CSEC victims are cited by victims as leading factors contributing to their involvement in CSEC.
These estimates arc based on sednteen discrete categories of sexually exploited children identified by Estes and Weiner. For a more detailed discussion about how this estimate was deri ed, please sce The Conunercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the CS. Canada and Mexico. pp. 139 155.
The Urban Institute, Jilt! ice Policy Center The analysis providers prosecution disposed CSEC projects • ( ‘than been There ‘ Trafficking An of and of Institute, who This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) federal Analysis accordingly? enforced? of passage Lost considered Several Control addressed are Prior focus While activities and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. is work those males great initiative, to Justice on CSEC most and of things the with and of who its of breadth between Penalties crimes Federally Violence the by passage perpetrators. studies Law advocates. Policy And case CSEC exploit most PROTECT occurred and Enforcement involving what, data, to the the center Prosecuted Protection for on to victims? of the children be ages Breaking the CSEC CSEC which But if in legislation however, the any, Act, TVPA 2003 of CSEC how seminal To Act for focus CSFC have is 20 Act effects the that presented answer the much financial of and (2000) using reauthorization research of passed increased 2000 on Silence Cases worked piece 65. 1994; have the of such the and an Since gain? causes next to of these shows national however, Mann impact together the help questions through U.S. in the To PROTECT changes of chapter combat of Act that Passage legislation. what have this summit the to legislation, despite of the we help crime TVPA, extent these in CSEC, 1910 3. of conducted majority Act legislation on combat the what and laws and CSEC. have the Victims (2003), but as preceded its the of well and start CSEC. are existing a victims, child Violent comprehensive had of efforts prosecutors cases of as on numerous the namely sexual it, laws few service being Crime the Innocence had related TVPA studies exploiters in the the is to protocol The Justice two could availability Prosecutors helped 3.1 federal documents Criminal secondary interviews (BJS)-sponsored obtained (IV)). commercial Urban and understand exploitation
CHAPTER m (Irban prosecutors unlawful interview. To Institute us (DOJ). prosecutors We To Prosecutor This A 1 An found from Code, raffi help Institute, identify data primary This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not we been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) help that to “investigations, Collaboration Analysis Experience conducted were sex of 3. chapter and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. eking commercial meet conducted and the achieve in children analysis ANALYSIS conducted should reviewed from inform acts Ultimately, program. Appendix selected federal Federal Justice a goal and with with Interviews of prosecutor across includes: the one Federally be this Violence prosecuting the of and of experience us. Polky Child with prosecutors social review with based sex Justice secondary the hour, this goal, construction the arrests, 13. The youth we OF acts,” federal federal our During other study Exploitation United from Center interviewed: Prosecuted Protection science on scope ed and semi-structured, FEDERAL Statistics research (CSEC) their prosecutions, along handling CSEC and crimmal to DOJ’s is data to prosecutors CSEC these States” of to answer research of interview, “the years this Act with analysis increase CSFC cases the and Resource methods, Civil interviews and data; an CSEC CSEC differences justice of project’s of study this (TVPRA our to Assistant 2000 at Obscenity Cases literature experience and face-to-face Rights help and descriptive of our the providing chapter research cases. CASE dataset, stakeholders starting Center federal incarcerations our Smce federal understanding budget fulfill we of Division. in U.S. predictive The on obtained are Section 2005, the DATA the questions (FJSRC), working the criminal the us with CSEC, or level: statistics limited Attorney included Polaris enforcement Passage with research eehn interviews telephone federal Title who a (CEOS) information detailed of models a and of on case of the Project, a work persons list II, of and in the Bureau from government’s CSEC interest, also team the number §201 Appendix of data key commercial within of on explanation of Victims potential the conducted our consulted laws engaged (a)(l)(B)(ii)(III) of cases case CSEC findings of on researchers District of CSEC research Justice the four relating outcomes. of prosecutors B. and using issues: candidates. mandate Department sexual in main from interviews of the offenders of their Statistics sex partner, informational the Columbia, to Federal from topic the trafficking unlawful Several interview to and we better the of areas: with 12 The balance balance” the provided procedures prosecution test the cases Appendix Appendix statutes
final B (/rban five construction a itto list CSEC in main between In that At Trafficking An the • • against context Institute, 13). B). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not addition been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) the can the Analysis policies, FJSRC on Methods Prosecutorial we prosecutor and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. points lhroughout beginning 10 be CSEC thought of the prosecutor for Justice most replicated, and our to database gathered of literature the charging of providing cases). Federally Violence study relevant interview should quantitative data Policy of decision-making the efforts each that collection dataset from and review course decisions, be Center Prosecuted Protection federal feedback ultimately interview, protocol how included the and data is of and prosecutor they provided protecting and statutes our and analysis service Act on CSEC n were and with could in reporting comprised interviews, the the case of the nevee presented interviewer (see 2000 respect Cases in list provider be interviews study. practices CSEC and the able of Exhibit better (i.e.. was Since research our statutes, federal to This victims to data handling how instrumental informed study at collect the 3-1). follows. initial the prosecutors (presented Passage prosecutors methods we from dataset federal These initial capitalized a list to CSEC the additional of ensure included in (a 10 section and prosecutor the prosecutor in serving more helped statutes record case; Chapter Victims state that on of detailed harm. 21 this and as us levels, there and this were statutes viewpoints of with 4). a narrow opportunity “check track chapter 1 is A his used explanation how a an summary list (see infonnation information down appropriate to and these of and on flag federal to the in of pilot of 13 not result been manner trafficking strategies The the types 3.1.1 18 1
18 18 R Federal Exhibit 1 18 18 18 I IS 8 8 8 U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C U.S.C. U.S.C. be field ( brought rban of of available in The differing 3-1 While Statute victims Trafficking An the view § § § § put § § § § § § Institute, which as This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 2423 2422 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 2260 1591 2257 2253 2252A 2251 2251 2252 Federal Analysis TVPA four to and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. in involving CSEC prosecutors the to A place that these prosecutors opinions JustiLL’ the such and United Statutes activity Transportation Se\ of activity) Coercion Production involving Criminal Certain Record Certain are Selling Sexual Description as to same groups Federally Violence primarily foreign trafficking associated as address Polici’ States on secured agreed exploitation or keeping activities activities extent Pertaining forfeiture & we the buying of what of national enticement (‘r’liter Prosecuted Protection their interviewed children sexual sexually involving from of of for that with requirements housing constitutes related related minor children of needs. domestic (in to of te countries other exploitation children CSEC victims. these the children violation explicit become Act (transportation (SEC with to to domestic and o example, For Commercial (or differentiated material material of crimes. is intent CSEC, (offenses victims. by relief 2000 Cases distinguishable This depictions of involved of force. sexual for minors) trafficking constituting involving definitional services. and According Since thus for minor Prosecutors involving traud, Sexual foreign have of exploitation prostitution CSEC in the affecting a human to or minor the These Passage certain victims, Exploitation engage or from coercion) to production distinction from sexual national containing them, who for trafficking protections charging of or human of protections in human importation exploitation other minors) while focus the criminal most victims of of has Victims child criminal traffIcking, materials trafficking they Children on decisions. prosecutors and been and sexual pornography domestic are into afforded of iwhuman view the of relief sexual shaped minors victims the response and based they U.S. services working them trafficking Youth around who had on as have the may a in the (4 should complexity, The decision there 3.1.3 prosecutors cases. these level. by often difference 3.1.2 CSEC which definition view prosecutor broadly sex thought
they believe m the Urban tourism. are get and it cited As They United be government cases prosecuted as Some When Prosecutors especially that Task pertained Prosecutors interprets An is no Trafficking treated more Institute, involved other more of in based This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not example been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) defined expressed Analysis and “hard also CSEC (e.g.. Additionally, CSEC combating and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. forces States disagreement asked states task of resources differently mentioned nthe on and Just to cases CSEC at an federalli’ in agency and CSEC and may of forces reported of have Office also how this enact the CSEC “add-on ice that fast” a Federally Violence human particular CSEC. handled promising be local crime. defined Policy to they been being as taskforce child have and human by of rules that a include cases. exists only or that function Juvenile charge” decide the leveL trafficking which very (‘enter Task at Prosecuted Protection Interestingly, the enhanced pornography leading by governing CSEC it encompassing facts criminal trafficking the over Some task has collaborations any CEOS participation instrumental forces to division state of in Justice of not whether force prosecute form in factors. the argued child Act the are their CS[C varying justice versus been leveL how established division and of case was is of distinct, no and within prostitution capabilities the 2000 commercial Prosecutors the that Cases or to child prosecutor will CSEC the in not a system that with Delinquency ways. make not Internet case passage combating the each of Civil be considered prostitution. and Since take certain for factors labor legislation federal at vital this thus and although government (CSEC) these Rights the to place Crimes the fully had child of decision. more that service in affecting such federal types the Passage Prevention. level CSEC successfully varying crimes a agreed have sexual Division). goes TVPA To form cases. and effectively Against the as of industry. is others, level, egregiousness, increased Generally. of agency but victims on which assume CSEC better have of with viewpoints exploitation. the These alone at need CSEC Children Prosecutors prosecutors the Victims combating also the CSEC pieces equipped cases handles investigate may a that differences further federal knowledge definition greater played by we have has on did should of of some task heard jurisdictional Instead, certain how legislation to level o include not reported made this development expressed CSEC a similar forces and investigate major who of that be in at state crime. in the CSEC prosecute types the the one caseload, tended this deciding funded needs, that role. entities state they that child of that An to 15 (FJSRC), detailed The 3.2 practices, to mandatory go because some witnesses 3.1.5 standard instrumental can what 3.1.4 for more actors involved cases cases.
and I the to Urban their be properly trial, types offenders statutes. descriptive and would Others data-driven. The Research As Plea Prosecutors federal Prosecutors The traditionally Trafficking An own case a in Institute, we in should thereby This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not minimums project been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) the of Analysis different secondary a prosecutors in bargaining will and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. go do records information. data argued prosecution. field criminal developing to after much statistics be be Methods Justice engage sponsored making were and However, collects generally of better able need they aspects that but CSEC for more Federally data Violence being case all is Policy were to some investigators in do iizore presented the trained Better However, better the analysis agreed refine more plea to offenders of not processing by they agreed tracked child not preferred increase center CSEC CSEC Prosecuted Protection information the consider bargaining. collaboration and information to the aware were that victim Bureau of in do that some more research across offenses, cases and federal and section it the so. unaware data proec11to of is plea Act it CSEC therefore, go prosecutors culTent transparent number Many important any of to and For the on obtained of through on bargaining be CSEC Justice 3.3 design among offenders 2000 automated data Cases the agencies. example, CSEC of in agencies below. CSEC riot of the any prosecutors the case-defendants collection Statistics employed to the Since investigations from and data at method “best prosecutorial formal collect federal is legislation the are trial Sonic one within mechanisms (and the collection the fairly state interest often process. prosecutor for Passage procedures and Federal practices CSEC many level here felt prosecutors various standard level less (‘SEC operated that may and of and that should practices. divisions efforts data of which Justice willing that the are better prosecutions the to actually government and we felt cases. in for so child” capable provide collected Victims by be discussed were cases conducted that can that usage. data collaboration Statistics to within responsible especially the plea be create to because policies seen collection involving Urban of even of make traumatic. and agencies. than and handling agencies) keeping as relied Resource disincentives greater tracked state-level Institute being there more child and the for among children or on creation practices all case (‘SEC are victims even likely are context Center CSEC (for all lists for to of 16 whom Exploitation cohort, The disposition stages, ofrccords offense several defendant of on Polaris CSEC criminal for interviews processmg. prosecution special U.S. by offenders
utilized more U.S. J case a U.S. the Ui-ba,i daily have district district thus The information crimes. U.S. processmg Project, different link seriousness, We To the attorneys, Trafficking An from statutes and experience link permitting We The Ins and across demographics basis. that This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) identify Analysis FJSRC organized Department of sentencing court titutr’, court, different interviewed mdcx index FJSRC and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Obscenity The CSEC we whose types of all file about each Justice us persons (including conducted prosecuting and list and file” 14 database link the CSEC stages of associated agency to is data. offenders, Section descriptive or staff of Federally build an Violence axailable offenders index U.S. fiscal of the such “groupings” Pour, Assistant the to This data defendants of arrested Justice.’ 5 a are FJSRC ikour link Criminal file to of CSEC more specific the arrest, year. with as feature files the penalties, to examine in is C’r’n Prosecuted Protection our race, federal sentenced the a U.S. comprehensive the statistics DOJ offenders across federal publicly from tee by and public investigation, allows approach It cohort Attorney statutes field Code of gender, in Criminal federal was a the the offenses criminal 1998 anous and Act fuller to available prosecutors SCCases CSEC for at working in also to (mainly and download prevalence FJSRC the the from offender of that a law age, to Division, data defined dossier stages set Federal description informed 2000 imprisoned. tracking 2005- justice that the tile we enforcement, prosecution, citizenship, of from together database of those rmthe from of District of detailed included vary and level. a processing. who Since characteristics, case unique of and key and both system, an by a from considerably prosecutor history routinely of of characteristics the JR website FJSRC analytic analytic To used ihvictims with feedback that sequential prior Columbia, tables our (see and adjudication, Passage Chapter measure defendants For including: and the comprise research cohort marital and example. Exhibit from (in characteristics cohort—defendants work FJSRC we numIr obtained two of subsequent Appendix 110 on of DOJ’s and at: the and developed prosecutors of on status. offenders methods, 3.1) u cohort, our prosecuted we many (http://ljsrc.urban.org). criminal of and data Victims assess identifiers CSEC prosecutors and can Civil Title from as for sentencing), link aspects, Since linking prosecute B) Rights stages to trends each offenses from a informed of suspects 18) see our pnor retdata arrest that that typology and we CSEC defendant-case that Appendix the Division research in permits system of and/or cover of including relied in adjudicated cases Child CSEC case CSEC pertain the and investigated as by o covers suhscqucni of h the all well on federal and several tiled all partner, CSEC case linking B). cases stages cases the to of in its as in We the in 17 binary processing The caseloads, relationship coincides the has CSEC case-defendant 3.3 sentence outcomes), the multivariate models imposed. initiatives groupings offenses’ numbers Urban dependent
increased I outcome investigations to This Descriptive In Trafficking S An • • length. Logistic for Discussions with Institute, analyze (e.g., that rates of This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not addition time been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and Analysis which Child Child Sexual predictive of measure section those and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. federal each variable, the we CSE( data we of passage for regression prostitution/sex used Justice pornography passage prosecution the we year, who and used these to exploitation held of is from presents Analyses statutes conducted conviction prosecutions the key analyze Federally Violence analyses. to to were at particularly Ordinary of cases Policy models descriptive 1998 the organize examine case of the project’s associated convicted. the findings in and TVPA) or through from outcomes Center Prosecuted Protection (18 by are of First, our TVPRA no es Squares Least trafficking conviction children federal used and the and U.S.C. conviction. Practitioncr after filing time analyses from we on characteristics when display 2005. convictions with We of Act 2003 CSEC and series (‘SEC conducted law to § our (18 case dependent used each 2252; disposition of (18 Since aebeen have PROTECT described Mecting enforcement (see information comprehensive U.S.C. 2000 model (‘uses (OLS) prosecutions. disposition U.S.C. logistic type. 18 became Figure the a variables related helped Since U.S.C. time § presented passage regression consists below, maintained has 2251; § regression’ 7 Acts, 2422; 3.2, in to as series noticeably the decreased, (conviction are to § refine the well We Passage descriptive below). 18 2252A) as conviction binary we of of 18 later descriptive analysis U.S.C. well to constructed the the the also as U.S.C. or build or modeling, cases definition TVPA in following steeper. of even as After and categorical conducted or this the § the multivariate to analyses git pleas. (guilty not) 2251A: § mean ie by filed increased, Victims chapter. assess 2003, 2423; tables. in Innocence of multivariate This and 2000, ihcase with this three in prison a nature. the 18 18 of the sentence rate typology. of This federal variety Despite the CSEC U.S.C. federal U.S.C. while rate models impact Lost as increase sentences typology. In total disposition well predictive this of prosecutors of the offenses: length Initiative, the § CSEC § increase number of predicting instance, 2260); as 1591) mean higher federal trial for with as the in of a This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of rnTrafficking and Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 19
convicted offenders has increased. Finally. nrnre than onequartcr of the cases declined by federal prosecution are sent to other authorities (including state prosecutors) for prosecut1on.
The dtscussion that follows is grouped into eight parts. In general, the information structure mirrors how an offender would be tracked and processed through the criminal justice system. from the
initial investigatory phase of a CSEC case all the way through to the sentencing phase.
The data aaiIaNc forthis study did not permit rescarchers to desennine outcomes of cases declined for Ideral prosecution.
The (‘rhan Institute, Justice Polic’i (‘enter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Sincethe Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 20
Figure 3.2. Case Processing Trends for Federal CSEC Cases. 1998—2005 Suspects in criminal matters investigated by U.S. attorneys. defendants in cases filed, defendants convicted, and offenders sentenced to prison
2000 1800 1600
1400 Suspects in matters insestigated by IS. attorneys 1200 1000 I)efendaiits in cases tiled I)efendanis cons icted 800 l)efendants sentenced to prison 600 400 200
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
3.3.1 Suspects in criminal matters investigated and concluded
Once law enforcement becomes aware of a possible CSEC violation, a formal investigation into the alleged crime(s) ensues. Information on federal criminal investigations is collected and tracked by the Executive Office for LS. Attorneys. Our analysis of these data revealed that the total number of suspects in criminal matters investigated and concluded by U.S. attorneys where the lead charge was a CSEC related offense more than doubled from 1998 to 2005, from 742 to 1,748 suspects (see Figure 3.3 and Appendix B, Table 1). Increases in the number of child pornography suspects accounted for most of the overall growth in the number of CSEC suspects. rising 148 percent from 526 in 1998 to 1,307 in 2005. The largest annual increase (19 percent) in the number of CSEC suspects during this period occurred between 2002 (n1,233) and 2003 (n 1,462). In 2005, the latest reporting year. most investigated and
The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center The percentage increased children enticement- times, prostitution, greatest
largest child concluded . (•rban . prostitution and 2000 1000 1800 1200 1400 1600 increase 800 Trafficking An percentage statute Institute, in This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not sexual CSEC been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) of Analysis transportation subsequent which and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Figure overall 18 (1 as offenses and exploitation Justice and nearly ...§5191) U.S.C. change of
for U CSEC child 3.3 Federally Violence years. 18 Policy tripled, were LSC among Suspects sexual for charges of illegal Prosecuted Center Protection for §2422 children followed exploitation the from child in Year sexual three criminal (nearly the investigated pornography Act (28 SCCases CSEC by TVPA types activity of percent child combined 7 2001) matters times of of — pornography CSEC and change). 2000 Since (wi its investigated, in related (n 1998 began .307), offenses federal the 436) Within Passage value) crimes. offenses almost to in •Sexual make o o from the that criminal the which Child Child of Although explicit three the same child 1998 which an prostitution/sex Pornography Victims covers impact Exploitation times year. to prostitution matters sex increased 2005 comprising coercion of as in however, trafficking many 2003 was Offenses of one-and-a-half category, trafficking for Children and and cases a the child of small as the 21 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since thePassage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
In terms of the disposition of suspects in federally investigated and concluded criminal matters by U.S. attorneys (see Appendix B. Table 2), most (‘SEC matters (about 58 percent) were disposed by
federal prosecutors who declined to move forward with a case in federal court. Among CSEC offense types. child sex exploitation matters had the highest declination rate during the period (62 percent), followed by child pornography (59 percent), and child prostitution matters (52 percent) (see Figure 3.4
and Appendix B. Tables 2a, 2b. and 2c). Prosecutors were, however, able to bring a fairly steady
proportion of CSEC cases (usually 40 45 percent) overall to federal court despite a caseload which more than doubled between 1998 and 2005.
Figure 3.4 Disposition of cases by federal prosecutors
U, 100% 0 90% U) 80% c Filed as a criminal case U, 70%
U) 60% c) 50% o Disposed by U.S. 0 40% magistrates B Declined for Federal prosecution C) 10% I0 0% 0C)
19 It shouldbe notedthat these declination rates for CSEC matters are fairly high when compared with federal offenses as a whole (22 percent). as well as compared to the major federal offense categories of drug trafficking(15 percent). weapons (26 percent). iolent offenses (32 percent), and fraud (38 percent). On the other hd. they are fairly close ith the declination rate for the detailed offense category of sexual abuse (53 percent). [Source: (onimndiu,n of Federal .Justice Stadsiics, 2004 (NCJ 213476>. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington. D.C.. December. 2006.1
The (h-ba,, Institute, Justice Pa 11ev(‘enter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysisof FederallyProsecutedCSECCases Sincethe Passageof the Victimsof W Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 23
Figure 3.5 present the major reasons and Table 3 in Appendix B presents the detailed reasons as to why federal prosecutors declined CSEC cases for federal prosecution. Based on total counts in 2005, prosecutors declined cases for the following reasons: because the investigation revealed that there was no federal crime 25committed (26 percent of declinations); for case-related 21reasons (26 percent); “agency request” (11 percent); the ease was handled in a prosecution other than federal court (21 percent); or, for other 22reasons (16 percent). Among the detailed reasons for federal case declinations, “weak or insufficient evidence”(2l percent), “lack of evidence of criminal intent” (19 percent), and “prosecuted by other authorities”( 18 percent) were the most frequently cited; in fact, together these three detailed reasons accounted for 58 percent of all case declinations.
Figure 15 Major reasons for case decAination, 2005
oAgency request 16% 11/s Q No crime
26% Q Handled in other prosecutIon 26% Q Case-related reasons
21% Other reasons
20 The “No federal crime” category comists of the detailed reasons of”no federal offense was evident” and “lack of evidence of criminal intent”.
21 Case-related reasons for declinations include: “weak or insufficient evidence” (which comprised the vast majority of all case-related reasons), “jurisdictional or venue problems”, “statute of limitations exceeded”, “witness problems”, and “stale case”.
22 “Other reasons” for declinations include: ‘lack of resources”, “Petite policy”, and “minimal federal interest”, among others. For the full range of detailed reasons for matters declined for federal prosecution, please see Appendix B, Tables 3, 3a, 3b. and 3c.
The Urban Institute, Justice Policj (‘enter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSFC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims (if S Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 24
3.3.2 Information at arrest
If an investigation produces evidence to support probable cause of a crime occurrence, an alleged offender is arrested. The U.S. Marshals Service collects and tracks information on federal arrests, which we lmked to our cohort of defendants in cases filed with a CSEC charge. These federal arrest data show that the FBI was the agency responsible for the highest share of federal CSEC suspects arrested, and its proportion of CSEC arrests increased over time, from 29 percent in 1998 to 41 percent in 2004 (see
Figure 3.6 and Appendix B. Table 5)2 The U.S. Marshals Service contributed about 21 percent of the arrests, although this number fluctuated slightly from year to year. U.S. Customs arrests of CSEC offenders dropped from 17 percent to 10 percent of total federal arrests. Self -wherecornrnitments an offender either surrenders or 24 voluntarily in response to an outstanding warrant-dropped from 21 percent in 1998 to 15 percent in 2004.
Figure 3.6 Arresting Agency for CSEC cases, 1998-2004 800 700 600 — s U.S. Postal Service 500 D U.S. Customs 400 cjSelf Commitment Marshals Sece I b
<.t -1 -t
2 Arrest data for 2005 are not included because the majority of 2005 arrests had not yet gone to trial (as of the end of FY2005), and trial cases are the starting point ofthe 0deral data linking pocess.
According to a 7/12/07 e-mail coirespondence ith U.S. Marshals Serice sufi “Selicommitnients. typically [occur] from a \arrant, but what you may be seeing is a larger number of these due to a program rnlled ‘Operation Surrender’. This is where the USMS has teamed with churches/pastors. and the ‘wanted’ are turning themselves in as part of the experience of being spiritually ‘found.’”
The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center according The assault,” offense designation tripled over
another booking
(40 m Urban percent
-D 2 U’ the over to
categories
200 400
250
300 350 50
100 At 150 Trafficking An same offense “fraud,” These Institute,
information 0 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) percent the Analysis in at the and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. period. the 2004). classifications b time same categories “kidnapping,” Justice time designated and
from Figure known of of period. “Obscene Interestingly. Q Federally arrest. Violence of 2003 Policy atTest, at were of”obseene the “Sex most ç
at 3.7 to time developed Center Prosecuted Protection material” the and declined 2004, offense” (‘SEC
of CSEC “Commercial time even N arrest <( while material” by of Act arrests from defendants “drug CSEC and
the 1998-2004 arrest arrests
q, Arrests “obscene of U.S. hooking. < 6 2000 lrafficking” Cases doubled percent Marshals offenses sex for rose r were CSEC sharply, by to from Service classified (47 tx 2 the defendants Offense percent (see the percent 1998 Passage by and arrests next Figure 50 r used are to under of percent in of • 2004 largest included arrests Type, increased 2004) the 3.7 h U.S. the to Obscene Sex Commercial and Victims reflect and from offense from or “prostitution.” Offense “sex Appendix simpiy the gradually Marshals 1998 of 1998 nlostsenous offense” category materials to “sex to sex B, 1999, 2004. each Service’s offenses” arrests fable “sex offense year and Other 5). by 25 The prosecutions experienced percent comprised the proportional growth pornography 3.8). defendants, (n defendants tracked perhaps who 3.3.3 m 427) second Urban decide Among in of by Defendants After Trafficking An other and Institute, number all only This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Figure largest been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) the in 20% 30% 70% 80% Analysis though to growth growth. 2005 increased the offenses, and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. CSEC cases more factors go Administrative 12 three to Justice I proportional of (ii percent and this information filed during of trial defendants in defendants 3.8 increasing (e.g.. 1,512) CSEC Federally which three-fold Violence cases majority on in Poller of Defendants httime. that U.S. a flied (see itness offense total also particular Office growth, Center Prosecuted Protection charged by is charged district decreased during Appendix tripled in learned CSEC 642 oprto) Information cooperation). types. of U.S. percent increasing case the court during the with during defendants Act district CSEC as from U.S. defendants B, 1998 in settle a of with child flfl result Table over the 2000 CSEC the Cases 85 Courts. court by 2005 on a period. prostitution, percent period, the CSEC over of 4). 454 specitc Since charged the period, with, period, These The Cases, percent the Sexual criminal charge comprised in the a period. number charges on 1998 CSEC data Passage with and from these • D QChild charging from children exploitation more trafficking Sexual Child all to reveal investigation, 1998-2005 child 35 In charge of defendants to 72 the three of 28 sum, to hntripled than defendants lile, pornography prostitution the percent to prostitution majority that practices 260 exploitation types Victims 155 the based the defendants. of number defendants, accounted in children of federal total of on charged 2005 is between of CSEC / all had collected the sex number of of CSEC (see prosecutors the evidence defendants Despite CSEC offenses for with but 1998 largest Figure only of and child the and 17 had 26 we impression The emerged CSEC California examined aggregating 3.3.4 defendant.’ multiple . rcceived Urban 100% prosecutions 20% 40% 60% 80% 26 To Geographic We ‘lraffickmg An with 0% was defendants. This institute, from the (n264), This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) examine Analysis the also (see that and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. AOUSC lnding the both 1998 total a Figure investigated Figure most large Justice the and the were ran of the dispersion number Our prosecutor 1999 share criminal Federally Violence CSEC somewhat Eastern geographical 3.9). filed. Policy analysis 3.9 of of 2000 federal the cases inter Figure District data of CSEC Center Prosecuted Protection counter Number extent revealed cSECprosecutioizs jews CSEC were: 2001 on distribution 3.10 cases to CSEC of and to what cases Act 1998-2004 the California CSE(’ which 2002 the displays that filed e of Middle contained of practitioner defendants 90 2000 had Cases CSEC over of 2003 Defendants percent expected, a CSEC (n District U.S. multiple Since the in meeting. cases 260). 2004 the according entire map of prosecutions based the federal of defendants. United in the Passage Se that Florida the 1998—2005 on s ci Southern eral commentary delineates Single to Cases per Multiple federal States CSEC inter\ the of This (n throughout the Case, judicial iewees 273). is District ae had cases data Defendant period. Victims not Defendant about states what involved indicated the district federal of the Districts of and we Central only Florida United observed Cases judicial that CSEC single where one their District that (n cases States, in or the districts. 21 the that 1), data. of we 27 The of and B cases Urban the Southern Trafficking An filed Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. in U.S. District Justice and of district Federally Violence Policy of Texas court Center Prosecuted Protection each (n 208). year Act CSFC These (see of 2000 Cases Figure same ic the Since five 3.11). districts Passage also of the had Victims the highest of mean number 28 The S Figure Urban Source Nctr L ff[) 3 “i’cs Trafficking An CO 3.10 Eednrtol Institute, Figure C —oIlS This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Sorce C-strict Note Analysis ndL and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Defendants Jutice rzlmcuo•r Sic DieS Shun-tn of 3.11 Fednr Justice Puent V2) cts and Stutist of ron Mean 3 Hr F—odni) I Jcshce n)FounH Rico Sup J Federally Violence C shown cs rh’ Disc, Policy Resource nc in 5 Stubs) Number 33) 3) eon t Fril on F Cases defer end map F the u (‘cci (“enter no Protection Prosecuted Center t’)rc C-slut do Dtnrr ni-)odethe Resource U t Filed Cern-is of ;m :1 hargrd of AC-U r ,t Cases 4’ Virgin C e-me çe) in District C wth Act ‘-r,2eO CSEC U.S. hr sOnic rum filed AdO of nJ (25 of on-mm f Co JSC District 14 r)) mc 2000 Cases umbia 4,otrct in aster 4 Cr ru o n U.S. C u F n (35), Ins of S n-nero Tux Since Court C-u Oct mc District a ante- D muon nfThnu2 Dxc, C-ri r S the F -0 o iF with tot Dmnrm 1988 nb. F Etetr cnr)d C Guam Passage arrear. Court H) or a Ct 2r05 4 er (f CSEC Y idt)ogr 08). ‘c with 393 dr”n -25 th.h’rt of D - strict (‘ 2005 Charge, the a IF) Mr Vrth’uFnfFInn:47F CSEC Defendants CSEC of 0) Victims Total H Northern u!cnat, cases 2,21 bow cases 11(1 1998 Charge, Mean S F’ Mon to tin of Outrrt 21,5 in filed turin)) ara)sLnnds 24) 7 per 4 2005 Ic to to H )Fordu)14) 1 34 23 1 year 1998 din (C 5) -2005 1), 29 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysisof FedcrallyProsecutedCSlC (‘ases Since the Passageof the Victims of . Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 30 Fmally, we also considered the change in the mean number of CSEC cases prosecuted per district between the pre-TVPA years (1998 2000) and the post-TVPA years (2000 2005). Districts that experienced the greatest increases in the mean number of CSEC prosecutions included Eastern District of California (+33). the Central District ofCahforma t-’-21).Ltah(+20), the Southern District of New York (+19), the Northern District ofOhio (+ 18) and the Northern District ofGeorgia (118). (See Figure 3,12.) The maps presented in this section include all CSEC cases according to our definition of CSEC. Since most CSEC offenders are child pornography offenders, they have a large influence on the geographic dispersion of offenders presented in these maps. To see the geographical dispersion of these cases separately, according to CSEC offense type (child pornography, child prostitution, and child sex exploitation), please refer to the maps in Appendix B-4. Figure 3.12 Change In Number of Defendants In Cases Filed in U.S. District Court Charged with a CSEC Offense, 1988-2005 - After Implementation of the TVPA irh C - ii N 4 N Easirut A C.a/rg a ‘16) S Lsunrt 514. 5 fa a 03) — ua a rra Cit Change in mean sr:r \ number of cases 85-7 —t -h:.,ar ut f t’.cts suer il-f i [‘strict.t jLr-u,fu Lets A ‘ .t’tr’ C f/C C A L’sC:t aueret/uT)anALsti ’Ise/SCri ej.rr Eedea Cr I uLce Statist is R-so.y.u5tf Cer.:u’ ACJSC rutfl master as enr.a, 1q98 - 2CCE The Urban Institute, Justice Policy 4Center pue,grandparents. spouses, ‘dependents” ‘various Commission arrest The percent), B, dependents, 2 percent about defendants, defendants three the increased in time, review for for Marshals 3.3.5 information . their Table child a Urban 1998 file CSEC categories despite 43 data of late Asian/Pacific (1998 Federal Defendant Once Trafficking An 7). percent sexual or According Appendi\ 2004 Service at Institute, sources. these data This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) variable were Analysis the 30’s divorced charge a on the and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. while 2005). greater a 19 2005). (1998 period, his/her number defendant data exploitation CSEC of I-hspanie to number identified hs tables these and reflects Justice B and to federal and (see early Appendix deni the of Table shows USSC. (16 rate Islander other the Federally background Violence on defendants remaining of ographics Appendix all 40’s, percent). of Policy 6-6c U.S. than Due average in is CSEC females relatives). a are as persons that defendants B. dependent (Appendix in any to single data kept Table with and Sentencing the the Prosecuted Protection Center the slight year. cases comprise in defendants separate. are B, other 94 0.3 eea criminal federal increased In and demographic a 7-7c the over differences mean is Tables percent addition, overwhelmingly percent Though household defined in oethan more to data B, charges. the Act U.S. FJSRC track CSEC Commission Table age comprise 6 at period, of claimed of according Native and in district comprising a about of them 2000 ohom .AOUSC defendants Cases the 6c). greater profile The doubling 40 7, Justice FJSRC total with and years throughout the 59 biggest American. Looking n or one court to Since nonHispanic, criminal collect number ihe for percent offender rate Figure AOUSC a system an old definition from large were the defendants were than more rate extremely of data in and at Passage uprs(these supports of 3.13) defendants Over the white, 1998 daia remainder U.S. federal increase 1998 males, we (1998 dependents CSEC track used remainder (1998 are white remained 95 to citizens. of and in followed on small 2004) defendant and USEC 2004. able the percent eases that defendants of iax 04 linked 2004) 41.4 males identifying could Victims for charges occurred forms. linked to proportion (Figure of Only filed defendants’ relatively years gather child by of be, the who demographics. with Therefore, defendants of 4 not in 5—10 hen claimed filed process. itli old pornography percent 3.13 are general the as U.S. only of in U.S. married linking constant U.S percent for U.S. and children. all aiyties, family the 2004. district no Sentencing males Black, The Marshal’s CSEC in Appendix citizens to all A the (29 of During U.S. over hut court was 1.6 3 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of J Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 32 Figure 3.13 Demographic Characteristics of Defendants in Cases Filed in U.S. District Court for a CSEC Charge,1998 - 2004 Gender of Defendant Defendants Number of Dependants Female 1,6% 0 61.7% Male 98.4% 1 15.1 % 3 6.4% Race of Defendant 4 2.3% White 94.0% 5+ 1.2% Black 3.8% Missing 3.5% Asian/Pacific Islander 1.6% Native American 0.3% Unknown/Other 0.3% Marital Status of Defendant Ethnicity of Defendant Single 43.3% Non-Hispanic 88.5% Married 29.8% Hispanic 5.2% Divorced 13.5% Missing/Unknown 6.3% Widowed 0.3% Missing/Unknown 12.9% Data Source: Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Federal Justice Statistics Resource AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998- Center, AOUSC criminal master file, 2004, linked with US Marshals’ arrest file, annual, 1998-2004, linked with US. annual, 1998-2005, via FJSRC’s link index Sentencing Commission data, annual, file. 1998-2005, via FJSRC’s link index The Urban Institute, Justice Policy (‘enter of prior The criminal of were else prostitution college (see with school pornography sexual 4.693) m offenses defendants Urban convictions graduated Figure 52 either history graduate” exploitation had 30 degree. “ percent Defendants In Trafficking An committed. The It Figure Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) in terms should high 3.20 a Analysis included was cases U.S. prior and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. or and from Most completing 3.14 child school and present. Sentencing listed be sentences of filed Justice offenders, criminal and had noted in criminal college. of Criminal Appendix the child prostitution from federal Federally as Violence graduates prior that largest Policy for their pornography 1998—2004 Commission record.v some the Historyfor 1998-2004 felonies while history, criminal CSEC highest B, statistics Center proportion Prosecuted Protection college or had Table most • D or History No Pnor had (N=5,999) About cases slightly daia prior all convictions Pnor rcponed level defendants defendants Criminal 7). less CSEC indicates or Act CSEC Criminal filed of half Within criminal graduating of than more that of defendants here History education, of during 2000 Cases c whether a on (see CSEC than Hook the (53 high charged vere history. criminal Since respective ever, the Figures percent) from half a able school (57 defendants person while 1998 the history with the to of while college, percent) Sexual Figure link data all 3.18, Passage had education. 9 had -2004 child crime percent to are federal do 7 any USSC 3.15 Explotation either 3 out charged based not followed with prior period sexual 19 of categories, provide of Criminal data the CSEC and did on some either criminal 10 the Victims with were exploitation and not Appendix of by Charge, further 4.693 college defendants 9 Historyfor those for some complete 39 history either fairly cases whom of information defendants percent 1998-2004 charged college • C experience (i.e., B, History Pnor Cnmirial No child well-educated, filed information (54 Child Prior high Table Criminal prior with (2,435 percent) in for or On History with our school arrests the a 7). child “high cohort on or out type child or of The B Urban 100% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% Trafficking An Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Figure Justice and of Federally \‘iolence Policy 316 CSEC Center Prosecuted Protection Offender Act CSEC - of 2000 Cases \& Education, Since the Passage 1998-2004 • 0 o c Less College High Some of the School than College Graduate Victims H.S. Graduate Graduate of 34 The charged pornography defendants percent attorneys with 51 to representing show S 3.3.6 z 2004. percent Urban little that 100% 200/0 40% 30% 50% 10% 60% in 70% 80% 90% Once Trafficking with An Type 0% Defense Infonnation Institute, decreased, variation the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 1998 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) to represented Analysis 1 a defendants and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. child 39 FY1998 of use a (‘SEC Figure suspect to percent Counsel counsel and Justice 45 pornography. and learned from of they FY1999 offender percent type 3.17 Federally Violence by is over tend Policy year remain was arrested from private of Type to FY2000 the counsel in to court-appointed participants is Qenter Prosecuted Protection be 2004. year. collected one same of attorneys he more Counsel of FY2001 or representing However, while period the she during well-off Act CSEC by could most generally retention for FY2002 of the (Figure the I I for 2000 Cases use CSEC prevalent practitioner Admlnlstratl\ economically, be approximately defendants of related FY2003 3.21 of seeks Since public Defendants, private and forms meeting the counsel. to FY2004 defenders in the e 3.22). Passage the attorneys Office federal of 15 held large relatively defense percent 1998-2004 Information Thus, • rJ on n a of Court-appointed of Public Priate Waeed/self-representation proportion (39 CSEC June the (45 the although percent of counsel. Victims 4, Defender attorney large percent U.S. CSEC 2007 cases on of Courts. share overall) of the changed the CSEC defendants Since overall) type use of These C’SEC child rose defendants of of from fell private counsel overall, from data from 1998 31 information 3.3. case The pornography Thus, relied decreased, exploitation, the while offenses, defenders, crimes, R 0. ci GO 0 GO Go 0 GO C C C Urban 7 rates disposition on while court 100% After Case 20% 40% with 60% 80% Defense Trafficking An 0% for indigent the Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) while and Analysis shows appointed private public private court-appointed Disposition and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. offenses, use charges Defendants 14 are All counsel the of Figure defense Justice percent that CSEC and defenders collected private counsel of attorneys use are defense Federally offenders the Violence of 318 Policy trends brought, and services fbr conviction attorneys public represented Pornography by counsel Type remained court Sentence accounting counsel I center Prosecuted Child Protection for the charged defenders a (i.e., of appointed federal Administrative case increased rate Counsel (23 decreased approximately Iiiiposed public a Child may with percent Act little for of CSEC child increased CSEC Prostitution of 51 be counsel. child for defender more (15 2000 Cases percent pornography disposed (33 overall) CSEC percent Office offenders prostitution than percent Since (43 50 For or of Child offenses Exploitation percent half and of of percent a offenders to all the court in Sexual h U.S. the to is 34 cases private of defense Passage a very 16 and percent the variety over 1998-2004 appointed of percent were sexual offenders charged high overall counsel Courts. o counsel, o • o the of Waied/seIt-representation Court-appointed Public Pnate of over similar the (exceeding time over exploitation ways. counsel) Victims system). with Defender time; Our attorney (33 charged period. 35 time: to Data percent analysis percent child those 32 of 90 (See 18 percent For on with offenses prostitution percent percent for overall) methods for of Figure child child all this public overall). CSEC most mostly sexual overall); 3.22). of 36 disposition The until appropriate reason, the trial. obtained are pornography statistically”. percent are by years • AOUSC .5 C) 0 (/,‘ban the guilty dismissed dismissed, the and corrected 100% 2 20% 40% 30% 60% 10% 50% 80% 90% 70% of Trafficking An category AOUSC 0% disposition 83 According Insi’itute, receives plea averaging This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not CSEC been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis percent L and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. convictions All 5 closing (see less Percentages percent did may CSEC the _____ offenders ,Justice to information. not Figure than and complete also of of correspondence 92 information Figure Cases initially Fcdcrall the Violence of percent be one Polici are 3.23 used the time of by closing 3.19 percent Thus, receive similar Pornography time, overall when trial, is Center and by over Prosecuted Protection Chld received Disposition with in data guilty complete Appendix the with and most of to the AOUSC CSEC from defendant offenders those a from entire cases. 86 pleas Act tenth (‘SEC Child the closing percent the convictions for staff, district of of B, the period), and Prostitution dies of district 2000 CSEC Cases all Table are “dismissed data a a prior 8 case court, CSEC percent convicted acquitted, percent information court. Since 8). Cases, with to may increased the a statistically” The offenses. Child verdict In Exploitation be data submit the over of rare coded by 1998-2004 federal and Sexual Passage the record for being occurrences. 95 guilty that slightly as one no time Child percent category “dismissed for reached case courts contest of percent plea, at the • u ci ci ci ci the prostitution from Guilty By Acquittal trial. No Dismissal Dismissed over case the of essentially in Victims convict and Trial Contest pleas. “dismissed the statistically” the those are would plea time. Sexual 7 district case. (Trial) “dismissed percent statistica Six of he convictions slightly Trends sercs convictions o exploitation court. statistically’ percent erwritten if, as ly convicted for Later, over for a some place of child reached with 4 if/when are cases holder cases the at 37 The offenders exploiters 2004. the offenders imposed months). sentence. received categories, sentence, 9). longest imposed, °- w (irhan There average Thus, 100% 20% 40% 30% 10% 60% 50% 80% 70% 90% average Overall, Trafficking 0% An prison in The Institute, Although (see has received which increasing also This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 85 2004 Analysis length sentences and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. also data All Figures percent received sentences sentence increased CSEC (74 federal ,Justicc’ been Figure of for the and the of from months). prison child Cases imposed of 3.24 longest Federally Violence average a prison convictions Policy the 3.20 60 imposed that 87 by and prostitution sentence percent child percent 57 have average Most Child Type as Qenter for 3.25). prison Protection Prosecuted percent a pornography in Pornography child sentence increased child of increase for 2004 in imposed sentence sentence Sentence (Appendix 1998 CSR’ pornography over sexual Act (‘SEC at slightly 80 to in of by time, was cases offenders Child imposed the of 96 2000 months. Cases exploitation 54 in the greatest percent B, CSEC with average percent Prostitution more overwhelmingly Table increased three Since the increased When (Appendix cases, of in for over CSEC number the largest 9b) the offenders 2004 child looking Passage at reveal time time, 1998-2004 the Child offense Exploitation by (Figure average of sexual B, than resulted only greatest with Sexual prison that of (91 specifically Table the the types, 36 3.24 percent) 84 exploitation. the sentence Victims months other percent 9a), rate percent in longest and a 187 iPrison o DSpht o oSuspended received prison over Probation Fine at types received Appendix of imposed months imposed, over our of sentence Only the Sexual these sentence of three time, period, a CSEC a prison imposed in B, prison offenders with crime also 2004 these Table being while the (63 in 38 The C) ( ‘rban 100 120 200 140 160 180 20 80 0 Trafficking An Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not FY1998 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Figure Justice -- FY1999 and of — 321 Federally Violence i>o/ici Mean FY2000 Gm Prosecuted Protection Prison — tee FY2001 Sentence Act CSFC FY2002 of 2000 Cases for FY2003 CSEC Since the Offenses, FY2004 Passage -±--All 1998-2004 of the Chil Child Child CSEC Victims Sexual Pornography Prostitution Offenses Exploitation of 39 hence The offenders these awarded exploitation awarded and child in Probation . 1998 ‘ 1998 (Irban remained the 40 20 30 60 10 50 70 prostitution cases. 0 2004. dotted I to Trafficking An (n—il) makes Note FY1998 Institute, are sentences This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 4 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis Figure received The percent and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. line serving that close it across appearing annual in were FY1999 difficult Justice 3.22 and 2002, to of of were shorter time that Federally Violence similar all offenders percentage Mean there Policy in imposed FY2000 years in to average Figure probation prison were accurately Probation to Genter Prosecuted Protection (see 3.26 the in no FY2001 in throughout of 2004. and defendants Figure overall between only CSEC sentences, determine being Sentence Act Probation CSEC a FY2002 3.26). very trend, 2001 offenders of convicted fined. the _— 2000 Cases and small averagIng seven trends. although Thus, FY2003 for sentences 2003 Probation ofchild Since CSEC sentenced percentage year is for extrapolated. FY2004 the CSEC the 40 sex CSEC Offenses, period. for is Passagc months small exploitation used to CSEC offenders of offenses probation —a—All Trends federal number in of with 1998-2004 Child Child offenses Child only the CSEC ho extremely overall, for Victims charged CSEC Sexual Prostitution Pornography a of received decreased very child probation Offenses averaged Exploitation cases of most small with a pornography probation few from for convicted child number sentences 48 sentences the months 13 sentence, sexual years percent of and 40 high offenders The percentage child prostitution largest ($70,084). with have time fines offenses, B $10,000 $20000 $50000 $60 $30000 $40000 $70000 $80000 Urban line period, the increased increasing sexual 000 average imposed received ‘ The Trafficking An lowest there In Note Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Those been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) of FY1998 Analysis 2000. was exploiters 24 mean and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. lines htfines that on was only by Figure fine percent mean y20 by in the a convicted 41 Justice single tine 2002 and a at FY1999 a average imposed of line. 29 percent the imposed can percent 323 Federally received Violence imposed of offender percent (S2.223) Policy be largest CSEC fine FY2000 Mean imposed of in over amount from child in convicted (‘enter 2000 Prosecuted Protection fines on increase average offenders 1998 and Fine time in federal FY2001 1998 prostitution reported ($8,480). addition with the Imposed ($3,795) with of amount in to highest Act child CSEC the CSEC were FY2002 the 2004. ($46,653) to the of lowest prison — pornography. Thus, average 2000 for and received oetaverage lowest Cases fined. (See imposed offenders The CSEC FY2003 or the is child average Figure Since probation astly lowest Child fine highest fines Offenses, was pornography FY2004 increased the higher imposed. pornography 3.27). fine average 23 ntences. in Passage in imposed 2003 than percent imposed 1999 1998-2004 ——All other from Fines fine of ($18,238). esthan Less ($3,554) offenders in Child Child Child the of years, offenders amount in 1998 2000 CSEC have the Victims eulExplotation Sexual Prostitution Pornography 2003 and 0.2 time Offenses and ($46,653). fluctuated 2004.’ received Lastly. percent imposed was ($1,637) of received with the due highest For of 17 to the the convicted over for an and percent all Over fines rate extremely greatest child CSEC the in the of the that 2000 years of 41 would participants federal made The 262 average a 247 an 254 knowledge match for system the attacks. 36 2001 processing shortest From takes and 3.3.8 child average child L”rhan mean days days days the prosecuting formerly cases, (n748) to 1998 those sexual efficiency, processing When amount The Trafficking at process An Case pomography in in in Ibid. during This Interestingly, processing Jnstiiute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 260 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) after processing time on to 2004. 2004. Analysis 1998. of have Administrative and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. explanation Processing exploitation to 2004, terronsm how looking the 9/11, days this of for a 2002 been Child Justice Unlike CS1C may project’s overall fines time and to the all of in the time directed handle cases time its (n—912), increased specifically Fcderallv 2004. CSEC Violence the reflect for prostitution time imposed of top J)/j 1 . case child decreased Time CSEC practitioner case the 323 total of pnority. was Office to The necessary these change offenders through 281 CSEC the pornography focus (Appendix days (‘enter or Prosecuted number Protection 274 trends increased spike impact days. the at cases. 37 Since of in on cases charges meeting to spiked days child mean U.S allocation the investigating 260 may to was U.S. with of to of cases Act process with federal (‘SEC Courts processing B, pornography defendants terrorism days. (see held to attorneys and 282 be federal (Appendix its Table of 404 its on due are Figure 2000 highest of child Cases days, This terrorism crjminai June also highest CSFC days cases. being federal to task 9c) tulle have 4. reduction prostitution, the increased provides Since with 3.28 has in B. at 2007. in (Appendix onl forces cases diverted processed increase at 2002 2002 322 justice Table resources increased the the and 298 a After finite and days decreased, funded longest Passage data and in Appendix from some days 9b) system the subsequent in case amount the B. faster. has in that after are 9’Il the resources by 977 in Table average 2002. after mean of processing not 2002, also allows total 1 terror from of the the 6 while in The B, time years percent retumed 2003 9a), 2003 but Victims at being and Table September number attacks, case dropping number average 318 us and the was dropping U.S. case and to to time, resources processed filing over days length 9). ofYercd of the to atiorneys’ 1.156 track improved processmg of of The its processing Justice to or defendants time. in llt to days to lowest of by how its in increased to 2002 mean disposition. its sc terrorist sentences prosecute 2004. time faster lowest Deparullent The to lowest long cral and trends point process that time while with from it at the at of 42 The • Urban 200 250 300 100 150 400 350 450 Trafficking An Jnstitute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not FY1998 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Figure .Justice FY1999 and of 3.24 Federally Violence Policy Mean FY2000 Center Prosecuted Protection Processing FY2001 Act (SEC FY2002 Time of 2000 Cases for FY2003 CSEC Since FY2004 the Offenses, Passage - 1998-2004 of Child All Child Child the CSEC Victims Sexual Prostitution Pornography Offenses Exploitation of 43 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 44 3.4 Predictive Models of Case Outcomes For this study we focused on the outcome measures of conviction and sentence length because they serve as indicators (or “performance measures”) of how CSEC cases are being prosecuted by U.S. attorneys in U.S. district court. We wanted to assess whether the new federal laws were being enforced and if the higher penalties were being applied after the passage of the TVPA in 2000. We also examined the raw number of federal CSEC prosecutions to ascertain whether the number of (‘SEC cases filed were increasing, and whether those increases were attributable to the new federal laws and initiatives. To model these important CSEC case outcomes we constructed a set of multivariate predictive 38models. First, we used a time series regression model to assess the impacts of important federal events and initiatives on the number of CSEC prosecutions filed during our study period. Next, we focused on predicting the verdict in CSEC cases, whether attained by trial or plea, by utilizing logistic regression techniques. Finally, for CSEC defendants who were convicted, we built a multiple regression model to explain the sentence length imposed by federal judges. 38 The following explanation of predictive models is provided J1r readers without a background iii statistical modeling: In criminal justice research, predictive models are constructed in order to understand the variation in key outcome measures, such as case conviction, in greater depth than is possible through graphs or data tables. It is important to understand how certain variables or factors are related to these outcome measures, and to the extent that it is possible, determine causality. We want to explain the relationship of certain factors to the outcome measure (e.g., is type of legal counsel private attorney or courtappointed important in determining whether a CSEC defendant gets convicted?). In order to get at these relationships, we build an explanatory model in which we include (or “control for”) all other possible factors available in the data that could also be related to whether or not a defendant gets convicted. In this manner we can determine, after accounting for other factors that may be related to the outcome measure, whether a particular factor is found to be statistically related to the outcome measure, net of the effect of the variation in the outcome measure that the other factors explain. This type of tnodeling is a method of partitioning the variation or “spread” of the outcome measure across all possible factors related to the outcome measure. Together, all the variables that are included in the model have a certain explanatory power in predicting the outcome measure. This information can be very important, from a preventive standpoint, if we learn that certain factors have strong relationships to key criminal justice outcome measures (e.g.. conviction) and if it is also possible for those factors to be controlled. The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center 20(13 9/Il thought The number Innocence the using The and actual occurred included CSEC and defendants observation constructed 3.4.! over . point Urban terrorist the initiaties black a time the “trend” values these defendant-cases 2003 40 of The • Trafficking An Time Lost 1o in several durmg coefficients The In institute, from line attacks monthly This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) major in assess time Analysis both around and The Several the an for results did. Initiative initiatives) results and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. of variable eases series on aggregated 9/11 each 1998 the the the events the when enactment in “dummy” the Justice the late prosecutor of and the CSEC of dependent PROTECT period: filed changes of in iitode! terrorist of our graph from 2005, (TVPA effects this 2001) (the they 2003) Federally Violence country). filed)) the as model in Policy prosecutions. 4 ° time dataset the “lagged” well variables 96 of had occurred. U.S. had is interviews we passage that attacks: of the indicate the as months variable regression no a series Act, developed (‘enter Prosecuted Protection important as meaningful district predictors occurred statistically prediction TVPA organized the in and or to we that 2000; Our and model 9/11 during (i.e., previous measure conducted court the the in The equation. Act time CSEC federal a impact around the significant teiTorist 2000: of first time the FBI’s line, are at of the 9/Il red each the the series two number 2000 depicted the month’s on Cases and FY1998—FY2005 series or terror number line events the monthly ‘Innocence major thc month. The attacks “line impacts in effects model same numbers on the Since attacks; regression two of federal and value the practitioner graphically, of ofCSEC on The CSEC time appear level the best measured important of the graph initiatives and of Lost’ events three of model Passage CSEC numho in fit” the (i.e., prosecutions the model. as early represents group period), prosecutions passage (the ntaiewhich Initiative of important prosecutions vertical dependent in included the the of federal of these on passage figure meeting, 2003 federal the dataset In impact the of with order Victims the data gray a prosecution initiatives (enactment of each CSEC 3.29. federal time “what PROTECT brought parfcipants variable the in counts of contained points, to lines a TVPA these month) (sequential prosecutions. set of This do given if” events 39 in up on of so, (TVPA (number federal and or Act, in figure events of indicated of CSEC the task month. we 2000 an as the CSIZC TVPRA, is blue graph that first court. forces generated but month) plots TVPRA and of on that of It the 2000 the the cases at also and ‘s. they the 45 policy being include The this while by been 2007). oftentimes movement support cases came and combat vulnerable providers United the supports have represents occurred, the counterfactual policy (Irban TVPA strategy red legal attributable increased built the that to makers It law 41 States line trafficking However, from The the Trafficking An is what Statistically TVPA services makers Institute, were and the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not up front-line in the made been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) populations interesting enforcement, Analysis attention begin until impact and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. the 2000, slope in was better advocates statistically many (i.e., prosecuted at pockets helped to considerable federal and several a Justice to after to done in and significant several the of much of what of understand workers victims in diverge of the the to the the Federalls Violence identification the such the to on law government. such were note Policy initiatives prosecutors, courts, United slower would line provide TVPA significant prior trafficking TVPA a factors enforcement as at case-by-case as at identifying that as, now gains would the trafficking the best Center how Prosecuted Protection to have and States. rate). immigrant of .07 9/11 was a such point 2000. being took they and structure 2000, level. a to and have This effect 41 happened and movement spirit passed. did affect as Ihese contributions place when trafficking could It shared and response Act basis; service victims, (SEC advocates remained 9/11, support not was advocacy of of prosecutors. for of change service in the seem the less sith also the if 2000 and in there Cases 2003. the have pros movement the 2003 to came led federally camaraderie 2003 cases) limited during to the flatter U.S. waiting victims in 2003 to was providers focused aders: expressed Since the have By communities initiatives 2003 this in initiatives. coordinated These anti-trafficking no 2003, who (i.e.. the this initiatives resources, the an funded funding field to of slowed specific initiatives organizations form affect Passage see now time human and the among dedicated over lessons as were how task number advocates of Had competed evidenced that was down (Small, on the did coordinated strategy, and the of trafficking service passed. as the forces the were grass-root the shared the years. not grass-roots worked TVPA presented early for TVPA of rate dedicated 2003 Victims 2007). occur). learned provided a CSEC for providers that in life This Prior time. among workers of of the response. initiatives federal and to would was prosecutions. were leaders Expertise 2000. of divergence in The make movement prosecutions increasing to This that CSEC to Figure not task needed the mandated (who in working black be grants helped may sure advocated brought this enactment Service force never interpreted in that 3.29 are line social have cases the rate to (Small, Thus, federal with was would to to and of for of 46 The have the today. conferences. participants: . Urban predictive been The Trafficking An Institute. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not realized been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 2003 Analysis and and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. As model Figure initiatives task Justice oas to and of shows, forces Federally Violence 3.29 great Policy played but across shows, an Centc, Prosecuted Protection for extent. a the these it tremendous was country 2003 Act (‘SEC not of the initiatives, shared 2000 Cases role TVPA in Since their the alone the progress experiences the goals that Passage produced of the the of movement at the VAvery TVPA regularly Victims the changes has held of likely experienced. national that would we see not As 47 __ An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 48 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Figure 3.25 Time Series Model Measuring Impact of Federal Initiatives on CSEC Prosecutions in U.S. District Court 180 TVPA passed 2003 160 (2000) 9111 Initiatives* +4+ 140 Prior to the [VPA in 2000. thc identification and renponne to (‘SEQ srctinss ,ccuircd on a case-by -case basis, there was no cooidrrrated response Adsocates + 0 led a grass-ioots mosenient to combat CSI’C by 4) 120 pros iding services and making sure cases came to the attention of law enfirrceureirt and prosecutors This 0 4) movement made considerable gains as es idenced its the 0 rise in prosecutronn prior to 20011 Grass-roots leaders V 100 ads ocated for supprs I loris he tedeial gos eminent and received it in the tsr in nt the l’\ PA of 2000 + C 4) I. 4) 80 Es 21103 lessonn ssere leanied that helped t’ederal C-) polirs makers better understand boss to aIled cliang. irs u.J ci ,rnnnninnties, Expertise that had been bar It rip Iricalls U, na noss being shared in federatE funded task tbre C.) 60 mandated to include lass enforcement. prrssccutorn. arid sets ice pros iders, ftindmg was henrg slrared among task torce participants, and task forces around tIne corrinir’s shared their expemuences at regnlarlr Ireld 40 After the FVP.\ mao passeiL the anti-(’SFC inns ement stalled for a time, for a + + couple ot reanon Itt ads ocates were ss ailing is ‘ce ho the TVP ssould be inter preted hr the policr makers and tIre corn to. 12 there ss an tess camaraderie + among sersice prosideis non competriro agaiirst each other for tederal giants + number of defendant-cases filed 20 Thus, white the TVP pros ided a stiucture for a I’S. coordinated strategs - tlrat strategy was not brought to fruition until several ,nitiatrs es took place in 200k. predicted value w/o 2003 changes —predicted value (line of best-fit) 0 o h 0 b çi I c5 0 h c5b 0 ‘\ .\ \ mx s m\ 9, 93r9, 9, r9, 9,9, 9, r9, 9,9, Federal npI9m.enearly 2003 include FBI’s Innocence Lost initiative, the TVPRA, and the PROTECT Act) The Ut-b an InStitUte,* statisticians course. can The proved processing power factors significant (through conviction simple 3.4.2 analysis utilized • he Urban reasonably there in pertaining important. dichotomous 42 Our Results • Model • multiple • To • Trafficking An modeled predicting either and When Institute, is This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not (at been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) factors were assess Analysis Defendant Qffense filed a Case Organizational model criminologists and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. small the assured a predicting acquittal vanable included logistic in pi’ocessingfrictors to the .001 as .Justice the included chance and yielded U.S. conviction of defendant related significant ‘verdict’ (95 odds factors Federally level). 42 demographics Violence is percent or (less district are regression Polic found as coil of a case in factors factors willing predictive than Likelihood that a variable the viction to characteristics confident) in This CSEC (‘enter Prosecuted Protection differences dismissal). court have 5 a are model to percent) CSEC (judicial (type to indicates accept. (type a important (race, before defendant “statistically build (conviction! variables that Ratio proved of Act that case. CSEC of the among Four gender, CSEC a circuits): or legal the of that were predictise relationship Chi-Square All in after 2000 to relationship Cases being in sets significant” our predicting counsel, be judicial charge statistically our no of age, the of statistically model the Since conviction). convicted model: factors is model. passage citizenship, offense-related “real” is tiled of relationship circuits case the due as conviction 133.49. significant. Passage a that and n not and to 1 processing as whole of he significant random Our emerged presence compared we the outcome and with which due of hypothesized TVPA. multinomial had in sampling marital the and the simply a Organizational time, was significant (See outcome federal predictors, Victims of nearly measure to and to co-defendants); highly error, status). not Exhibit whether random investigative measure, CSEC logistic all bemg of to hut in explanatory statistically be of while sampling ihat our 3.2). the the factors related convicted case, it is regression model means case case a none chance and we error. agency): also to was that of was Of that the we a 49 The Prob LR Judical Judical Number Judical Judical Judical Judical Judical Judical Judical Judical Judical Judicial Orcianizational Presence CSEC CSEC Offense-Related Age Marital Citizen Gender R Race Defendant Case Investigative Case Investigative investigative Type Case Variable Intercept Logistic Exhibit = Chi 2 Statistically Statistically Statistically Urban < (years) of (Non-white) filed processing Processing Chi 2 Charge: Charge: Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit Circuit status Circuit Circuit (Non-Citizen) (29) Circuit of (Female) legal 3.2 of Regression Trafficking An Observations: after Institute, Demographics = Co-Defendants This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Agency: Agency: Agency: .0001 counsel 09 (Not 06 07 08 05 04 11 10 Analysis 03 02 01 133.494 (District Factors significant significant Child significant Child and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. TVPA Factors time (NOTE: Factors married) Prostitution/Trafficking Sex Justice Customs State/Local U.S. (Private (months> of Model of and of 5,375 2000 at at Columbia) Exploitation at THIS Postal Federally Violence the the in the Policy Predicting the Representation) p<.10 p<.05 IS p<.OO1 Authorities Serivce Case THE Center level level Prosecuted Protection level REFERENCE Conviction Act CSBC Estimate of -0.8933 -0.6171 -0.9225 11.6627 -0.2614 -0.3066 -0 -1 -0.3575 -0.2558 CIRCUIT -0.1819 -0 -0.0055 -0.2894 -0.0464 -0.0133 0.2053 of 0.2791 -0.103 -0.097 0.3345 0.2697 0.3003 0.3452 0.0185 3.7994 .4677 .41 CSEC 5610 2000 Cases 22 Defendants TO Since Log Pseudo WHICH Chi-Square Likelihood Wald the 4.6686 0.6713 8.6273 9.2584 0.0754 0.8606 0.0926 0.2514 R 2 2.274 OTHER 18.62 Passage 65.28 0.00 2.78 2.71 0.89 1.78 0.61 0.28 0.86 1.89 2.77 0.59 4.42 0.06 3.57 0.01 .30 - CIRCUITS 2358 of the 391 Pr> Victims 0.4126 0.0033 0.0307 0.0023 0.7836 0.3536 0.1316 0.7608 0.6161 0.0001 0.9747 0.0956 0.0995 0.1822 0.3446 0.1694 0.4355 ARE 0.5981 0.3550 0.4442 0.0960 0.0356 0.8093 Chi-Sq 0.0588 0.9390 0.000 COMPARED) of Odds-Ratio >999.999 0.770 0.540 0.409 0.398 0.902 0.626 0.736 0.908 0.244 1.228 0.699 0.774 0.834 0.57 1.322 0.995 0.74 0.955 1.397 0.987 1.310 1.350 1.0 1,412 19 9 1 50 captunng ifrne between differences aeoy although category, (e.g.. together model). U.S. investigative against predicting the none The our gender, versus attorney so statistically the more eea agencies. federal Service cases terms those disposition. type . after it federal U.S. ra Jmtitute, Urban hypotheses Postal the made of the were likely were defendants which of The comprised Department legal ° citizenship, netgtosconducted investigations or In We Trafficking An In Postal investigative passage Service, When FBI conviction terms gny our agency. no State/local This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not found terms agency been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) filed all Analysis significant than included the counsel and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. comprised difference other including Service it about a the odds and categories, after of defendant-cases of really to of whose In court-appointed of Justice categories conducting remaining and offense-related Defense, be case State/local marital addition, the of reference of several representing the in passage uhrte,respectively, authorities, agency. makes Federally statistically about Violence differences categorical and TVPA. a a cases processing (in nature Polici defendant these CSEC the are status, State 10 90 terms no by category defendant uhrte (these authorities u model our of were percent the tt Department) State defendant-cases ectof percmt differences difference compared. the and Prosecuted Protection (‘enter of case. the variables and investigated attorney investigation of FBI. the and were significant. the factors, brought investigative factors, being was TVPA in conviction) local defendant For relationships age. the the analytically demographic Usually primarily will showed found in Act reference CSEC reference convicted type or a authorities 4 ’ the Although 3 of still case to predictive agencies ulcdefender. public of that by 00also 2000 the U.S. between type and investigated of mre albeit emerge. were 2000 the Cases was that whether processing gnywere agency the hich each aeoywith category group. CSEC group; defendants FBI, district of of each increased type FBI not. model, all variables conducted the Since CSEC these category u also hut to defendants Thuclore. ihere factors had charge, had coefficients For and a of be it court CSEC in by the time, a variables legal is are a convicted most charge, each a other dummy all included is a necessary greater by investigated as the different Passage that a small used. we o’.erall. prior pletha ttsial significant statistically controls observations a whether counsel defendant U.S. additional investigated federal factor were sdchild used variable percentage If the were other with likelihood othe to direction, there of to (odds-ratio—l.412). the Customs of presence detemiine the statistically of was in agencies other reference the in investigative conviction by are included was would our TVPA Victims 1.019. month the ofCSEC ease statistically the not perhaps. pornography federal either oe,namely model, of Bureau represented direction a besides FBI of bechosen statistically category as rfrnecategory” “reference was being Defendants (odds-ratio—I from of co-defendants, a significant inestigati’e by investigations in In and predictor filed significant agencies this predictors. U.S. were a the convicted case is CSEC consistent as the No instance. mainly as Customs, the U.S. before by statistically significant, remaining in tiling the whose reference race, agencies a in our case, besides .35). which Postal private trir while or than and to the with In 51 Nevada. Oklahoma, significant group. The categories, category. to judicial against you had the offender defendants Eighth (Maine, and te circuits other differences pornography significant a prostitution’sex .70 Child compared reference . aewas case each odds) Urban the Tenth lower will since which other sex Oregon, Circuit odds) °‘ However, distncts. Finally, Massachusetts, Trafficking An be at in these th and Utah, The The of When Institute, category we exploitation odds Circuits, to the and This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) at in also the all convicted. Analysis in being hypothesized child 95 and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. defendants the U 1 . of differences as the .05 Washington, other different terms (Arkansas, Second including (about Circuit important being it trafficking 8’. our level We .10 Ninth Wyoming. really the Justice convicted catcgones pornography and with and respectively, of of model level. found Second from is convicted defendants, Federally .40 makes conviction I Circuit Violence ill categorical (about comprised t5 New which that and in Policy Iowa. in child Circuits the still also terms arc defendants highly child the predicting no compared Hampshire. Circuit, odds) emerge. compared. .50 pornography to otenMariana Northern ifrnewhich difference Gente, Prosecuted xmndorganizational examined Protection defendants. Minnesota. in prostitution as variables of and were of compare in the statistically on New the compared of their a the albeit statistically odds) the which following CSEC were being to conviction. For York, in reference Rhode likelihood other crimes. Act CSEC CSEC sex in a the CSEC Missouri, and This predictive less a is convicted case. category of trafficking to different Islands. other disuicts: significant 45 Connecticut. comprised ad were hand, significant 2000 Therefore. et Circuits Tenth single Cases offense Island, iey(they likely defendants difference (Second) The Those types of model. is while direction, California. Nebraska. Since and being used. type. defendant reference as n Puerto and at factors it cases of of compared child the the aesense made not tis it differences we If was the and in circuit. the had CSEC convicted. there lOtS Perhaps. .001 choose necessary the statistically sex (.40 Alaska. Passage with Vermont New to statistically North Circuit about circuit cases, level, exploitation are Second see Rico) cases. 44 the CSEC with child to co-defendants statistically York, Arizona. choose between to while if includes of .75 Dakota, odds). 4 ’ The and with there detennine pornography had the the Circuit. diffirent the defendants We there the Connecticut. this offenses significant presence Victims child Second which Guam much Colorado, odds) were 9 th significant Thus, and found the effect is Circuit poniographv a Defendants “reference aai Idaho. Hawaii, a lower had a Eighth. First, ere South lower from we any offenders of to greater Circuit, of if that in was Kansas. be used at was you judicial differences oeclosely more co-defendants the and child the odds convicted Dakota) child statistically statistically category” as are as Circuit First to chance as Vermont .10 New odds the in the compare (about Montana. an did the Ninth. level. reference between reference Mexico. also related (about that as .25 in 52 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of R Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 53 3.4.3 Model predicting sentence length In order to assess the factors that are important in predicting the prison sentence length imposed by federal judges on convicted CSEC defendants, we used multiple linear 47regression to build an explanatory model. Our outcome variable is prison sentence length in months. It is important to note that since our model only considers convicted CSEC defendants who were sentenced to a prison term, results may be generalized only to this population. Similar to our conviction model, our regression model predicting sentence length included five distinct sets of predictive factors: • Organizationaiflictors (judicial circuits); - Case processing factors (type of legal counsel, case processing time, whether the case was filed in U.S. district court before or after the passage of the TVPA, and mode of disposition [plea or trial]); Offeicse-related factors (type of CSEC charge filed and presence of codefendants); Legalfactors (final offense seriousness level as measured by the federal sentencing 48guidelines, criminal history category as computed by the federal sentencing 49guidelines, and whether the judge “departed” from the prescribed sentencing range); and Defendant demographics (race, gender, age, citizenship, and marital status, education, number of dependants, and ethnicity). Results Our model yielded a “coefficient of determination” )2(R of.33, indicating that the model is able to explain approximately 33 percent of the variation in prison sentence length (see Exhibit 3.3). The F- value of 54.79, significant at the .001 level, indicates that we can be nearly 100 percent confident that the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression. ° The “final offense level” as calculated by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is a measure ofoffense seriousness ranging on a scale from I (least serious) to 43 (most serious). There are six criminal history categories according to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, ranging 6mm I (least criminal history) to 6 (most criminal history). Offenders are placed into one of these categories based on theirtotal number of prior criminal convictions. For more infonnation about what is included in the federal sentencing guidelines, please consult the USSC website at: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelin.htm, TheUrban Institute, Justice Policy Center crime. but not range forbv The pomography. received, statistically eeec category reference significant processed sentences sentence legal significant given defendant category defendant’s set sentence . length then appropnate of Urban for the predictors a independent must imposed. a downward Only Govemment In Trafficking An defendant-ease, 61.2 netted length. on Institute, that ‘Departures” before issued This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not terms been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) predictor, in supply Analysis significant prison in average, and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. predicting one The months were a the were particular Not On of reason(s) an or of second Justice for for departure variables and sentence defendant case not after of upward average, the are surprisingly, while statistically “substantial sentences higher as type Federally differences Violence statistically sentences two sentence ease determined processing the for Policy offense-related of type that because departure increased offense-related in passage received than for CSEC an our departure Prosecuted (‘enter assistance’ that Protection imposed of each extra length: significant those by all in legal model the different factors, were the charge. rsnsentences. prison of of a one-unit case by received 7.7 by which federal sentence defendants the the counsel, the to factor, 6.5 46.7 Act are judges CSEC months is authorities TVPA legal only variables unusual at type Child from months, are of statistically sentencing months the increase an 2000 that subiect presence Cases mode reduction factors case of defendants on extra were .001 prostitution/sex in who fall CSEC that sonic his we and processing Since higher to outside guidelines. of level. on 53.4 an pled not. included appellate or included related disposition of each way, offender the of charge. e sentence. her the co-defendants Defendants months guilty. of(either than convicted 19.9 he offense “jump” Passage Ifajudge review. or to time, were pros child in months, h may she trafficking Child the on the above (trial ides seriousness of highly to and outcome Most and pornography average, convicted model determines exploitation In the about the “depart’ or versus in on whether downwaid terms sentenced Victims below) next a significant defendants average. another CSEC proved variable, while plea) from of highest that level by ihe the of departures, 5 ° departures criminal defendants, the defendants applicable trial the case, for statistically each All was ease scale, sentencing prescribed in prison received criminal child received four yielded predicting a case defendant was statistically are the sentencing of or sentence petitioned the each range range. another these history no a is 54 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 Exhibit 3.3 OLS Regression Model Predicting Prison Sentence Length Imposed on CSEC Defendants Standard Variable - Eimate Error Pr> It Intercept -10639 11.05 - Case Processing Factors Type of legal counsel (private representation) -575 3.80 0.1309 Case processing time (months) -0.10 0.22 0.6555 Case filed after TVPA of 2000 4.73 3.63 0.1923 Mode of disposition (trial) 61.22 6.52 0.0001 Defendant Demographics Race (Non-white) 16 15 7.41 00293 Gender (Female) -0.97 14.21 0.4964 Age (years) 020 0 14 0 1641 Citizen (Non-Citizen) 9 06 10.09 0.3694 Marital status (Not married) -4 74 3.95 0 2305 Education -5.14 2.78 00647 Number of dependents -1.78 1.21 0.1423 Ethnicity (Hispanic origin) -0.29 6.36 0.6541 Offense-Related Factors CSEC Charge: Child Sex Exploitation 46.74 4.80 0.0001 CSEC Charge. Child Prostitution/Trafficking 0.20 3.78 0.9576 Presence of Co-Defendants in the Case 0.31 6.16 0.9594 g4j_Factors Final offense seriousness level, 1-43 (USSG) 6.50 0.24 0.0001 Criminal history category,I -Vt(USSG) 7.72 1.33 0.0001 Upward departure from sentencing range 53.63 7,29 0.0001 Downward departure from sentencing range -19.87 3.86 0.0001 Organizational Factors Judicial Circuit (District of Columbia) 2 63 22.29 0.9061 Judical Circuit 01 527 9.02 0.5594 Judical Circuit 02 (NOTE: THIS 5 THE REFERENCE CIRCUIT TO WHICH OTHERS ARE COMPARED) Judical Circuit 03 6.57 7.68 0.3924 Judical Circuit 04 8 86 6.65 0.1828 Judical Circuit 05 2.62 6 59 0 6910 Judical Circuit 06 26 53 6.79 0.0001 Judical Circuit 07 1563 7 33 0 0330 Judical Circuit 08 1046 688 01288 Judical Circuit 09 0 23 6.11 0.9705 Judical Circuit 10 5.23 6.95 0.4518 Judical Circuit 11 15.72 6.39 0.0139 Number of Observations: 4,456 2R .33 F (40) 54.79 Prob> F = .0001 = Statistically significant at the p<.OOl level = Statistically significant at the p<.05 level = Statistically significant at the p< 10 level The Urban I,,stitme, Justice Poflci Center The prosecutor data. 3.4 circuits. could Connecticut. received “reference” Wisconsin) length sentences effect 15.7 received defendants difference average, namely: all . these I 1 rba,i months To expect htwas that between • Much • Summary Finally, Traftkking We An help gender, demographic sentences non-white sentences Institute, imposed This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not that interviews, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) who prosecutors, statutes Analysis Prosecutors egregiousness, No Charging include and circuit). controlled longer to and and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. summarize was was statistically prosecutor receive the the were ealso we age, Vermont). Justice learned of that across and that Sixth, statistically to any than Eleventh defendants of CSEC race, decisions Findings more increase the variables, Federally Violence for a were were felt form and CSEC examined these Pollcv longer judicial Seventh, following jurisdictional fully a from citi7enship, significant defendants educated htbetter that while number victim 26.5 5.1 Circuit of findings, the received defendants are Center significant Prosccutcd Protection agreed commercial rsnsentence prison speaking only months months circuits. CSEC number organizational and based service information of (Alabama. (either two at collaboration in marital with Eleventh “extra-legal” highlights sentences the complexity, lower the defendants on with Act longer emerged CSEC We at in of providers) college the .10 child the Sixth the the of investigations prosecutors status, found than Florida. definition 2000 level. particular for Cases emerged: CSEC than Circuits, .05 Second factors sexual that of Circuit as a CSEC graduates among level. in defendant and statistically key CSEC-related education, would statistically Since were both and Circuit. exploitation: to resources outcomes respectively, of (Kentucky, facts In n from and defendants all see the and the Georgia) 16 defendants CSEC do addition, or actors demographic months Passage if of much Seventh prosecutions: number those Thus, significant there significant: h case the being are that offense the (including received Michigan, more who who all of and were included longer an in broadly analysis Circuit of the leading else offender the with did dependents, the had than than differences any variables Victims race and Second than being not sentences Second at (Illinois, factors law interprets below. offenders of the Ohio, differences factors; es some least and attend white in federal enforcement, equal. creation of the Circuit in education. Circuit and such From and on our that Indiana. defendants, college. Sixth CSEC in CSEC sentence CSEC Tennessee) ethnicity. as in model, of other college) were (New the (the prison Circuit more to case an On and about York, a Of 56 The predictive that at federal the The . the Urban analysis were informational state CSEC Case • • Organizational • • • Trafficking An revealed Institute, models. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) level offenses Analysis pornography While CSEC-related Defendants defendants Defendants Service proportion defendant-cases The Defendant forward Most Most victims of traditionally Prosecutors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. processing case the FBI who CSEC CSEC Justice private prosecutor federal from and data. and of witnesses with overwhelmingly was work Federally cases Violence of tried tried tried State the agreed matters This cases factors: offenses, they Policy factors: responsible a CSEC counsel offense case case on secondary in investigated investigated in in information and interviews do task in were other data. the the (‘enter Prosecuted that Protection in (58 arrests a not local represented compared offenders prosecution. federal forces, First, Sixth found plea percent) With circuits consider relied for data authorities increased conducted the bargaining Circuit the by Eighth, by Act is additional CSEC court to it analysis. on presented will charged the highest to (Section be were of it a indigent defendants FBI 2000 in little to (Section U.S. Cases could and likely over be California, to disposed in is and share What information with Tenth more result Customs 3.4.2); in this Since in fairly expect time be defense the other 3.3.1); categories child possible of study in follows than in Circuits “best (Section the by standard and federal other to Texas, a federal Bureau federal Passage conviction prostitution half services receive were from interest are circuits to based were of CSEC 3.3.2) and further in agencies extremely were the prosecutors, prosecutors the of cases a (Section Florida the of’ less longer on highlights offenders (Section (Section suspects and statistically the Victims explain the likely involving besides child” sexual useful prison factors (Section 3.3.6): who especially 3.4.2) 3.4.2) to arrested, of charged from some to be exploitation the in declined sentence more used children make convicted helping 3.3.4); the U.S. of with for the and likely analysis prosecutors child Postal to the because for findings its shape child move than than a of 57 The . (‘rban Offense-related • • • • • • • Trafficking An Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis less largest Among arrests from who Sex Defendants Ninety-five There sexual of increased occurred, Had court child likelihood Unlike Defendants 1 2005. attorneys federal a tmade it and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. he private CSEC likely offense the total pled 2003 sexual prior Justice has Prosecutors proportional exploiters from and child court the of no 2003 attorney cases guilty number where the at been to Federally to of Violence to three difference convicted percent whose arrests a 1998 exploitation factors: be pornography Polk—v 2004. being despite number the initiatives slower oserwhelmingly a convicted (Section the CSEC receiving 60 TVPA to of versus were cases rose however, convicted CL’nte’, Prosecuted Protection growth, of percent lead 2004 suspects a rate) of by in caseload federal offense sharply able (TVPRA, CSEC (Section terms were charge 3.4.3). case trial a as (Section and (Section court-appointed the increasing increase compared to commercial Act in received than has CSEC CSJiC tiled child longest of prosecutions bring types, by which criminal was resulted of 3.4.2); convictions increased PROTECT those 3.3.2); 50 3.4.1); after 2000 prostitution, Cases a convictions in a percent defendants (SEC-related average more a by fairly to the sentence defendants the in matters child sex 642 Since a average attorney by passage than would prison steady arrests whether from Act, percent sentence pornography 16 the the investigated are doubled charged 61.2 percent and Passage have number 1998 sentence proportion whose or average reached of declined offense over a months public the ‘Innocence (Section CSEC been to during with over of ae were eases the FVPA 1999, of offenders number than more en imposed being by the and defender from lower prison higher defendant period; of time child guilty Victims the 3.3.7); CSEC concluded and of Lost’ 6 (i.e., (Section period prostitution 2000 percent of months, hnthose than by brought plea however, (Section (Section doubled days and of cases Initiative) another was they had and (Section (Section by to to 3.3.8); represented ssith overall oU.S. to a would process 3.3.3); 2 convictions U.S. 3.42); from greater defendants they had 50 percent child never percent 3.3.1): the 3.3.7): were have 1998 to district and a of by 58 The discussions possible findings learned address see m Urban what from our Based • Defendant Legal Trafficking An a areas from accomplishments Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) we Analysis research Non-White than attend college) CSEC (Section who CSEC netted sentence For defendant The this and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. the where on factors: had each vast did are study analysis what Justice college defendants the federal and with demographics: of received questions White single. improvements 3.3.5): majority one-unit increased defendant Federally were Violence we is CSEC CSEC Policy included of offenders (Section learned we CSEC with more federal sentences who have increase of defendants of service by (‘enter Prosecuted Protection no an federal interest likely defendants 6.5 from in were 3.4,3); made could children, extra CSEC tend Chapter months providers on that the to more CSEC for to to 7.7 Act be received CSEC the and result case prosecutors be were date this made. months have of (Section 5. offense and educated white, cases 2000 data. Next. Cases and in in study 5.1 each a sentences More conviction the prior advocates on months have non-Hispanic seriousness in Since 3.4.3). (see fight jump and (college his Chapter information criminal only Chapter the or secondary against that to lower her than Passage when one the graduates 4 were level sentence history, we co-defendant next than males defendant, 5). CSEC we on present data of 16 scale, With highest CSEC the presented the months between or and and analysis, (Section possible Victims these those the the and are have defendants criminal cases defendant’s longer, results data, fairly the them who cases of 3.4.3). uncovered we lessons ages (Section had we are with well with history from on who are of better at average. that prison preliminary educated one 30 least detailed able some did 3.4.2). category can and able not some to be 40 to 59 meeting The 4.1 discussion, asked preliminary the related information date, ensure provided metropolitan youth suggested CHAPTER . Urban Urban the questions (CSEC) that to For Key During • • On To Trafficking An into participants the the Institute, person Institute. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) along a vet Analysis June ease prosecutors What How field Was research shared Findings four 4: Urban minimum and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. area current service preliminary the PRACTITIONER and of 4, to information with could sections to practical to Justice meeting and but 2007, presentation generate The Institute of provided recruit contact findings study. eesent were provider their Federally Violence also of findings and purpose Policy a below. ih people eight lessons group participants. td findings study suggestions to SpecifIcally, Urban service for researchers future missing feedback. and collect a experts, Center Prosecuted Protection the we from of meeting These of to Institute could research the MEETING meeting. have providers? eight use original or the participated meeting for What e findings key a hsinitial This needing this with we grouped be federal half-day Act agenda service CSEC with staff future learned agendas, wanted opportunity Using of a follos information list local was 2000 Cases presented clarification data and providers common research. meeting of in this email from to for commercial were and a practitioners analysis are the Since know: copy the list. as the the meeting. where was the from preliminary themes was Urban a and the Urban of data key means in otsalient most be followed Passage the planned these advocates the possible, sexual contextualized points that Institute and discussed About Institute study literature of experts could study of advocates not by exploitation learned for literature the two create met points only a project staff the be telephone Victims during findings about revie? weeks for shared study. obtaining from changes in sent learned in a team review. a SCissues CSEC half-day the the of of practical prior invitations the and Polaris with call children Washington, practitioner to in practitioner rmthe from participants feedback to present from practice the meeting the Project setting? CSEC and to meeting staff as four each on for D.C. at to 60 v from victims. equipped prosecuted The in understanding information victims. data wanted federal into cases CSEC with could addition, expressed offenders. 4.1.1 CSEC hours . ith state-level Urban commercially various contact to information may be that cases cases.’ the prosecutors to They Moreover, Federal When Trafficking An impacting they to Viewpoints Institute, know ayconcerns many local, we be This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not same been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) case, Analysis operate on with prosecuted data. and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. reported easier spent discussed of discussing CSEC sexually national, why extent and CSEC prosecutorial are about Justice For they and expressed are the and with to of offender not the victims that example, build exploited Federally Violence and not htthey that types CSFC case wanted were refine how primarily statistics the P0/ic) a about international perhaps going typical in and eight data of federal child role and (7zapter offender programs children decision to Center Prosecuted Protection data practitioners httypes what are prove forward currently for know offenders service in those CSEC pornography the coming currently prosecutorial sex 4: olganizations hs types these CSEC in profiles, Practitioner making, why engaging geared activity). court, Act offender with providers SCCases CSEC of available (e.g., into informed federal of phenomenon being data johns” at in 2000 they the cases. contact headquartered of Meeting age in identifying their With decision profile are practitioners CSEC who collected. child entities asked do of Since currently us While cases, experiences, more v victim, hot willingly represent htsome that based pornography. ith offenders they making questions the were in capture or these they and information For the Passage are more being on sex thought the Washington. responding not understand shared example, offenders available bu which about experiencing states views of the were the about keeping sex collected victim, of types Also, full that of the their trafficker/pimp nthe on have not a why when Victims D.C. select federal spectrum through to they showing of that they more number experiences laws by the cases the offenders victim metropolitan may group we child would wanted federal needs majority disaggregated of data, regarding their presented be to of up of of and pornography pursue better be victims 8 cases. participants (‘SEC of in entities. that work to sericeproviders working area a better the CSEC of know deeper they captured who federal also They the federal with per In why group ‘ork come on 61 during The largely CSEC characteristics 4.1.2 SEC enforcement community members: experiences cities, reported enforcement enforcement. in Latino CSEC more with practitioner statutes practitioners that reasons victim, “patronizing . centralized Urban in state child cases, “crews” case the rely literature Washington, Meeting SEC resulting Another ( eases Trafficking An that Institute, case they charges. 1591, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) prostitution on to members Analysis working reported at reported to there wondered and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. a now Prostituted localities be are the cases of processing of this are trafficking see participants, in 2422. processed type in girls the not Justice child are is trained general time. “red The and more D.C of seem an with that may victims, on carried of using and 12 Fcdcrall Violence and such victim belief if increase flags” data their Policy children the severe of this victims, he time victim” to to 13 is 2423) largely sexual a the as be be more majority the information when forward years “hand and experiences is meant as of period. Center brothels. “girlfriends” built Prosecuted 27 Protection that penalties in practitioners a are criminal are which the practitioners exploitation aware witness pimps/traffickers the presented depends old delivery most eases used solely being by number of use Based (e.g.. This the federal effectively of on Act child (longer at with activity CSEC were of for directly around on the a eases XXX of service” ith sex on decentralizing of thought lesser child of cases how where pornography find gang extent being 2000 prosecutors their Cases slaves defendamits. prison involvement to preliminary were the taken Rated” prostitution CSEC that elevate rate prosecuted conduct members are experiences, instead the were tried and Since child by for gangs sentences). tried because to case nature cases gangs. and stale-level at missing the the a practice (such cases as raids. of at the “john” findings in are is in Passage “Honeys”) offense a brothels only the cases. are being their most of state CSEC witness One as heavily participants are Also, state from gang When built may prosecuted two or charges. tried mid-twenties. level. Considerable of advocate of from tried, of “johns” activities. to level. the the or the those involvement and make and having involved presented are better at three Another the Victims advocates federal the the the the made feel The cases it instead explained analysis in number issues sex avoid more federal were time They other that thought in time to of database Based with are with example CSEC than “service” federal it we difficult prosecutors detection of that reported jurisdictions). being of takes level, is and some being a that interviewed on law spent is federal trafficking they and and that their was for cases. pursued in while of for housed gang that face that by some the federal the a given law law The 62 national The cases involving tried and that limited shelter for children length victims to By of evidence child domestic differences important advocates. services. processing children for to extracting recount erimmal testify domestic not Urban the willingness it at took to can of with the doing prosecution or With to victims participate Regardless Trafficking An stay to the (e.g., Many victims foreign Institute, in no be help longer the for state This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not information been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) In phases ease. help among Analysis staff court. victims prosecution. difficult services. in respect and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. so, addition, service details hotel them to the felt were level restore the They who because national versus Justice participate Participants are CSEC in and system. takes of that of receipts, child this deal to of moved more providers to an are whether traumatized If believe Federally Violence it from case them their services find foreign the investigation often Polict was a with trained As they victims victims is considerable likely Staying processing children placed the faster them exploitative mentioned in to other emphasized that meant the generally expressed the Genter to the Prosecuted positions Protection national child available to to were feeling take stress again, victim and than prosecutors witnesses, case in deal in see leave being on a and the overwhelmed into less times, themselves cases situation earlier, amount with of process. involve victims. every and that that situation where is Act system that prosecution for CSEC the this detained account likely domestic if this of at children there victims telephone participants differences criminal should aspect ordeal). you for 2000 the they of Cases multiple where entails special to (while time foreign as is do when federal be in by can or a need of victims also who Since should happen juvenile justice considerable dropped and they and foreign what records) having the population. remember not victims preparing exist had focus to national level. are service the effort CSEC may getting be is only and or varying to going between Passage detention national, expected to than further heavily that find Others welfare be and be on be be situation providers victims a exact constantly lack needed However, domestic in through placed the can victim offenders. them one experiences. of a specialized victims felt on part participants of systems. the better substantiate from facilities details method you this other specialized and that in services for Victims have of the CSEC them. secure “re-victimized” participants have emotional housing trial and service It then foreign and investigatory types for participants w’as or to to Some these of and to Working be for make feel foster preparing cases handling a housing take also of rebuild victim’s services providers good is national domestic securing that felt corroborating differences state oftentimes into sure since felt observed care witnesses that preparing with reported for and this their by account that to the the for claim. with CSEC foreign needed and testify the cases having case type child these cases trust that a are a 63 participants The engages person system engaging to is others Participants themselves prostituted next dichotomy prostitutes For occurred constitute when 4.1.3 elements contested. are processing see whereas • part these Urban often example, themselves section). discussing of (e.g., is that Participants exploiters Language in Participants Trafficking An domestic the a for prosecuted in of Instituw, CSEC. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not CSEC. victim. been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) as children in since and victims Analysis agreed the prosecutors, acknowledged this criminal foreign and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. how criminals some as same how crime. CSEC they A Jtotice victims as The CSEC v.e that used and people of as goal of also national agreed they quickly “sex activities. enterprise often label CSEC, “sex Federally word Violence the to because in law expressed of Polici victims are viewing traffickers.” and refer phrase that the domestic trafficking advocates run that “pimp,” compared enforcement, victims, treated especially testify. (‘SEC while “sex Uente away Protection Prosecuted to and it it were is “sex affects domestically them concern not important ythose by trafficker” versus on child or the field Domestic is Their victims” more trafficker” to a domestic dropout as the to advocates the Act victim. other CSEC service victims. shift affects victims over other foreign likely viewpoint characterization of working to seems cases thus prostituted 2000 the CSEC Cases of the pay To hand. victims, should providers, how to commonly the While criminal believe national use creating help close because feel to Since to system. ictims is victims seems of more combat be that shift criminalized this are the attention children it the adopted CSEC justice advocates, a has of while evidence indeed refer shift to readily the term are dichotomy Others are Passage its this imply not mindset also characterized victims victims in to field as “piinp’ a to when crime victims been pimp characterization imply their felt “prostitutes” by of the harder to is researchers) and the easier the some between that the language of talking may and (discussed exploiters and in that Victims public and process those to case the child the a that to affect keep the not sex and CSEC about produce CSEC type for in and from pornography the that ot child should criminals trafficker and as the track the in ho has domestic controlled of foreign a “my is greater context. viewing criminal definitional be victims. or person apparently acts being children and of instead reluctant controlled pimp,” during may that rarely national victims. detail used who cases child justice This person refer be view case to in 64 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysisof FederallyProsecutedCSEC CasesSincethe Passageof the Victimsof W Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 65 Another term causing concern in the CSEC field is the use of the word, “commercial.” To some, “commercial” implies that a business or industry must surround the sex acts involving the child. In this case, for CSEC to occur, the sex acts must occur in commercial establishments such as brothels and strip clubs. However, others interpret “commercial” broadly so that CSE( involves any situation where sex is exchanged for something of value. For example, if a child exchanges sex for shelter or food this would also be deemed CSEC. Those with a narrower view of the word “commercial” would not consider this second example to be CSEC but only the exploitation of a child. The distinctions between these two definitions of “commercial,” along with the other terms discussed above, can have a major impact on the definitional elements of CSEC, identification and response practices and even measures of the prevalence of this crime. 4.1.4 Thfferences exi.st in the way domestic (‘SEC victims and foreign national CSEC victims are viewed and treated. The practitioners discussed the differences they face working with domestic CSEC victims as compared to foreign national CSEC victims. Based on their experiences, they feel differences exist in how victims are viewed, identified, and provided services. Participants discussed that a goal of the TVPA was to help shift the characterization of foreign national trafficked persons from criminals to victims. Prior to the TVPA, trafficked persons were thought to be criminals because of their involvement in criminal activities, detained in prison facilities, deported, and were not entitled to any social services or benefits while in the United States. As a result of the TVPA, foreign national victims are no longer being viewed and treated as criminals, but are now viewed and provided with benefits similar to refugees. However, participants expressed that this shift in human trafficking characterization and treatment from “criminal” to “victim” has not permeated the CSEC field for domestic victims. For example, while foreign national CSEC victims seem to be identified by collaboratives, domestic CSEC victims seem to be identified mainly by law enforcement. While foreign national victims are placed in programs and given secure housing and needed social services while their case is being investigated and prosecuted, domestic victims are detained in juvenile detention facilities and often not provided with any services. In addition, domestic victims may also be placed back in foster care or returned to their homes, situations from which they often run away again. These differences in characteri7ation and treatment The Urban Institute, Justice Policy (‘enter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of S Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 66 seem to further the criminahzation of domestic CSEC victims. However, meeting participants explained that discussions are now occurring about changing policies and practices so that when domestic CSEC victims are arrested their cases would no longer be considered criminal cases but given a status demonstrating that the child is one who is in need of supervision by the criminal justice system. Practitioners also offered explanations for why they believe these differences exist. A primary reason expressed was that the particulars of some domestic CSEC victim cases are not as straightforward as foreign national CSEC victim cases. While foreign national victims may have gotten involved in CSEC acts as a result of being offered promises of employment (lured) or being sold by their parents, some domestic victims may voluntarily enter into a relationship with a person that then becomes commercially sexually exploitative. The varying methods of entry into the sexually exploitative situation may be a reason why foreign national CSEC victims are viewed differently flom domestic victims. All practitioners agreed that this is something that needs to be studied carefully so that we can ensure that all CSEC victims are being treated as equally as possible. 4.2 Practitioners’ Suggestions for Future Research While information learned during the half-day meeting came from a group of only eight service providers and advocates from local, national, and international anti-human trafficking organizations headquartered in the Washington. D.C. metropolitan area, the focus group served a vital function in helping to provide context to information leamed from the literature review and the analysis of federal data. Based on the practitioners’ feedback we are beginning to learn some important lessons about the impact of federal legislation on the CSEC movement. However, with any good research, as some questions are answered, others emerge. What follows is a list of questions posed to us by the practitioners that we have formed into suggestions for additional research for the CSEC field. • Data collection on CSEC information. There were many questions practitioners had that simply could not be answered by the federal data. Either the data were not disaggregated 2 Sentimentsexpressedin this paragraph were also largely echoed by members of the 42 Bureau of.lustice Assistance (BJA)-fundcdhuman trafficking task forces gathered at the 2007 U.S. Department ofiustice Conference on Human Trafficking held September26 28. 2007 and attended by members of the Urban Institute research team. The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center The . Urban a a Trafficking An Institute. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis between being should Domestic prosecutors, could uniform, how CSEC prosecutors prosecuted Prosecutor CSEC also gangs state-level in local Gang resources need types 50 data data. Additionally. In suggestion enough and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. CSEC addition, states open to compare gangs to Better ensure of identified involvement in language and Justice and look build of be or offenders how CSEC. as would could versus up for Federally data asthat ways Violence human captured case was Framing. much perpetuating build at data some victims, that cases a Policy CSEC identification we and hs differences, these new build were to and greatly foreign Is practitioners collection hudconduct should victims their as missing contrast trafficking Identify make and this in beyond Prosecuted avenue Protection Uenter in prosecuted. victims possible, With (SEC not service on CSEC. federal cases. victims a benefit the recommendations national new collected CSEC are CSEC so with the relying for activities and eases wealth are A providers, not much Ideally problem Act fields. would (SEC and databases, language addressing who seemingly the response activities federal-level identified paying viewed studies of information SEC are that at so CSEC of emphasis 2000 are Efforts Cases like the this need being heavily information or it involved advocates, particular that victims. best federal as on just and strategies to type in field new the and Since to to criminals prosecuted. need see CSEC neighborhoods? is take data. reflects to placed on a federal may CSEC of treated being area by problem additional the conduct level hr appear There the td would study in to place attention increasing the Doing law be at are Passage CSEC. be o CSEC for hl victim child on issue used entities the the and (e.g., captured within criminal made targeted enforcement, so the with a state phenomenon an that by CSEC studies in that of This data child to analysis Studies to on the our their a key the inform all activity the n local and to justice we new at ensure more what will on justice Victims be as communities. study types victim h state the stakeholders types conducted understanding can victims a name? many ensure court focusing of prosecutor effectively. witness. types is field that taking fully of focusing of prosecution system. level as the of CSEC differences personnel) services level. a language To of of has that understand involvement witness on osee to place. on CSEC additional what (e.g., on hoe A limited on A tramings arc gang of study gangs primary CSEC state-level how all extent Doing data clearly is CSEC for cases). in activity the the the a these data in and of on are so all 67 The . Urban Trafficking An Institute, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis better effects, Crimes participate the may increased victims populations Other victims and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Internet; be Justice understand exp/anaton/1etors. and besides Against of affecting to receive public Federally positions Violence in are the Policy the the during receiving Children focus awareness prosecution the the passage Prosecuted Uenter Protection of CSEC increase of positive the the (ICAC) appropriate lengthy Aside in of movement. Bush Act of CSEC in general CSEC-focused well-being CSEC the of task from administration case 2000 Cases prosecution services. on forces; federal cases. These processing human Since in general increased legislation, additional legislation. Appropriate the of trafficking. on time Passage CSEC the n where and federal period, CSEC factors should practitioners cases. of service Studies the issue; prosecutor and they include: Victims be provision conducted make on can the thought other of the work most sure training; increased historical will effectively to both of other help the restore and Internet factors us use of 68 create prosecutions prosecute The These suspects legislation, where California. as federal 5.1.1 these secondary 5.1 thoughts manner and findings, CHAPTERS. m the Urban useful. questions TVPA and increases a level, Is Although Research by In prison Over Trafficking An in for in Institute, its use the data Chapter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Texas been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) criminal answering creation Analysis While this implications perpetrators in and the and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. the laws United sentence analysis CONCLUSIONS other follow. have last United course the and there chapters Questions Justice and 1, to of matters of chapter countries, PROTECT particularly States we Florida the fight task Federally Violence was of is States of posed Policy using for research imposed the 2 the forces, CSEC existing investigated we enforcing through CSEC jurisdictions, FJSRC study. is a we a Uenter Prosecuted attempt Protection Act collaborative, indeed series occurred in AND and questions can has policy, legislation America. were 4 we CSEC a affirmatively existing of significantly of to NEXT national utilizing and uncovered Act this CSEC research synthesize additionally after the practice we aaand data concluded of report number victim-centered to laws STEPS 2000 2003 posed Cases summit) these address questions and information increased. state each related this when the Since in created of laws. by research. Chapter meeting information that investigations, contain to acts U.S. there the bring to Evidence we the associated to From Passage CSEC? approach. attorneys we aimed was address 1. United a we awareness conclusion tnily We 1998 a held and was of convergence to conclude case hope the States this with nationally Although answer to with to found present Victims to 2005, crime. filings, CSEC, the section practitioners. this is by that this taking field the we issue. more of of We it conducting and chapter specific especially in that efforts total did finds found active a convictions than and digestible highlights not number interesting Answers with (i.e., laws to doubled. look that steps in our at such at of to key the to 69 prison. judicial clear sentences went imposed related children? circuits. criminal The (as offenders sentences 5.1.3 (2) predicting defendant; and (as obtaining charge; the case: 5.1.2 . J ‘hat race opposed opposed investigation; Urban filed message into (1) factors offenses. Have Laws and circuit. In We Trafficking An What history on (3) whether in effect) with during a Institute, are the terms This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not a been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Analysis conviction offenders the (6) to found to education child and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. predict 61 associated US. is prison are other the low judicial Second. In categories; being Prosecutors months to of htsame that the (3) general, key pornography Justice FBI); the courts and education 80 sentence of CSEC sentence case case st’iitence convicted features following months sent Federally level; if Violence circuit Third, of with longer, the Policy increased processing was longer time to longer charges); and case (4) are length. levels CSEC CSEC emimposed term in where filed Fourth, length? of Prosecuted case Protection (‘enter offenders period and type on utilizing atr were factors 2004. was: prison successful duration average, before (high penalties we sentenced passed offenders—if (as offenders of the time; Fifth, filed dramatically Meamvhile. found CSEC opposed sentences aewas case these Act school who CSEC or in (4) ic 2000 since after than on Sixth, (‘SEC of important after terms associated the presence charge; were increased with laws SCoffenders: CSEC 2000 Cases or to the offenders following prosecuted. you were the or the below); child of cases? decreased higher sentenced and passage Seventh Since passage case (5) are number increased in of associated securing from with prostitution “legal” predicting convicted co-defendants guidelines who processing What the offenders factors of 53 commercial (from In Circuits in of Passage of the plea): factors the (1) general, the months the tfe punishments. stiffer sentencing offenders with: TVPA; to mode penalties you Sixth conviction 13 TVPA: or charged be for offenders time; of (as percent child offenders predict statistically the will in in offinse there opposed Circuit, of sexual investigated the receiving 1999 contained Victims (2) guideline disposition sex most associated with was case; to (or who the convictions (prior seriousness exploitation crimes 4 who as likely child to “success”) a agency percent). of significant (5) are greater opposed The probation the only factors: go to by type sex Non-White; (trial with be against other when mean to U.S. one conducting sentenced exploitation in chance trial levels of Thus, offense); CSEC to or in and circuits). cases? Customs in CSEC TVPA sentence other plea); a (whose CSEC (6) a and of to 70 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSFC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of m Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 71 5.1.4 What, i ally, are the effects of CSEC legislation on service providers who work with these victi,,,s? Federal CSEC legislation impacts the work of local service providers. Federal legislation oftentimes focuses on non-U.S. citizen victims, leaving service gaps and identity questions for U.S. citizen victims. Providers are left in a difficult position to secure social services for U.S. citizen victims because the focus has been on victims from other countries who do not have status in the United States. There is an assumption that U.S. citizen CSEC victims have access to needed specialized services simply because of their citizenship status. The experience of the practitioners included in this study has shown that to not be the ease, especially in the case of secured housing for juvenile victims. Providers also felt that federal CSEC legislation shapes the identity of its victims. While non-U.S. citizen victims may have an easier time identifying themselves as victims largely because of how laws are worded and interpreted, U.S. citizen victims have a more difficult time identifying as a victim leading to U.S. victims feeling criminalized by the process and opting to drop out of prosecutions. 5.2 Implications for Policy, Practice and Research In this section we give our thoughts on how the current study could inform policy, practice, and research on CSEC-related issues. While there are many lessons that can be gleaned from our study, we present only a few here. 5.2.1 Implications for Policy • Do no enact additional federal CSEC-focused legislation Data show that current laws are being used and prosecutors and practitioners all agree that at the federal level CSEC laws are sufficiently addressing this crime. • Continue funding collaboratives Congress should continue to fund CSEC-specific initiatives like they did in 2003 because we found it matters for securing convictions and longer sentences. Prosecutors and practitioners all cited task force participation as a key to success. 7’IieL’rbaninstitute, Justice Policy (‘enter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An Analysisof FederallyProsecLLtedCSEC Cases Sincethe Passageof the Victims of Traffickingand Violence ProtectionAct of 2000 72 • Increase data collection efforts—Prosecutors and practitioners see the value in collecting and analyzing data, however, it is not a current practice for their agencies and organizations. Funding should be made available for data collection efforts, and Congress should make reporting of disaggregated data a requirement, especially data on crime victims that can be linked to offender data. • Shift CSEC language -Efforts should be made to promote the use of language that views domestic CSEC victims as “real” victims so that domestic victims will not feel criminalized by the criminal justice process and will be more willing to participate in prosecutions. • Access to specialized services A review of services provided to domestic and foreign CSEC victims should be done to ensure that both populations are receiving the types of services they need regardless of their citizenship status. 5.2.2 Implications for Practice a Allocation of staff resources—Attorneys from jurisdictions with the higher conviction rates should be matched with attorneys from jurisdictions with lower conviction rates such as the First, Eighth. and Tenth Circuits. a Training opportunities—-Training opportunities should be both national for uniformity and targeted based on circuit needs. Training topics should include: how CSEC is defined; how to decide whether a CSEC case should be tried at the federal or state level; and how to conduct an effective CSEC investigation (with the session possibly led by the U.S. Customs Bureau). • Case declinations—Federal prosecutors should review why so many cases are declined for federal prosecution and if some declinations could be brought forward with different policies, or better training and resources. a Task force participation—-In jurisdictions where task forces or collaborations are not already happening, federal and state level prosecutors, law enforcement, and service providers should coordinate their efforts more effectively to ensure that cases are brought to court. • CSEC defined—Develop an agreed upon definition of CSEC so that charging decisions are more uniform. The Lrbaiz Institute, Justice Policy (‘enter The federal forward we questions 5.2.3 . would Urban data? htother What • • Why • Implications • • As Why • Trafficking An with institute, arise. like This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) with Analysis data. Look Tourism Safety Do Collect Look Compare Talk the Compare demographics Are are and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. a are to ease more state Working most service to most see domestic at at utc Policy Justice Act and factors and law of the in perpetrator Prohibition level. answered ieseries time for U.S. federal-level studies, Federally CSEC federal Violence of work analyze enforcement providers Research on 2006. are CSEC may CSEC this of matters court? on different, and (‘enter Prosecuted data Protection be data CSEC-focused analysis Improvement project the prosecutions victims reporting affecting prosecutions measures at on journey What officers (58 the SCvictims CSEC and left to percent) Act really CSEC state happens incorporate us the to a we to who of different Act with determine wanting task answer 2000 level. increase treated with Cases would disposed conduct of to prosecutions ocsand forces prosecutions 2002 Since these that (‘SEC one differently like to impacts in at know investigations could and CSEC by set the what to cases? offender see federal of see Passage the of more. from then rate research prosecutions? implemented. at than recent how Adam the are prosecutors be other Thus, of profile foreign this state-level specifically compared the CSEC legislation Walsh questions, intersects countries. Victims we than CSEC cases leave Child who what to to of such on another see being with perpetrator victims? you Protection decline CSEC was as if with prosecution defendant handled the set found to crimes. questions Sex of move data. and in at the 73 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Appendix A A-I Review of the Literature on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth A-2 Glossary of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Terms A-3 Reference List A-4 International Actions Related to CSEC A-5 United States’ Actions Related to CSEC reading A Children for actions anything including focus are involve and statutory mouth, (Small exposure; exploitation. violence varying In protect 2.1 Included highlighting (NGOs). exploiters estimates (CSEC) This of Appendix Review formal This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not the been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Action void Children can and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. review the of literature & that Definition children sexual We be definitions work this of is held are of rape, definition in Zweig, money, Lastly, of intimate for done either include any of can value Next, Appendix of literature of sexual its the Acts in the A-I Estes molestation, the transactions the or exchanges prevalence. be on Stockholm, and from in efforts here 2007). noncommercial we First gifts, of we and anus; given constituting & kissing; crimes four literature of of assault Literature worth only Weiner discuss provide CSEC, Prevalence sexual review CSEC Youth A World jewelry, of parts. child the are a These against the for market (2001). can and most where forced Sweden. Second, a on U.S. was violence. and prostitution; is details Congress monetary United glossary First, be child widely sexual sex the on clothes, and of or the made understood actions children there value. on child acts commercial CSEC California commercial we on cited sexual we actions Nations abuse the In of Common widespread are Against may or lay international food, discuss sex definition the to key pornography; financial and exchanges out Commercial exploitation state combat acts (Ellison, be of Declaration, to and CSEC shelter, youth a governmental law categorized sexual the mean characteristics in of oral, that formal terms nongovernmental CSEC, addressing nature. in Commercial gain, CSEC, terms actions (hereinafter are 2003) penile transportation, the a pedophilia, of exploitation used wide definition include cult For anything commercial. whereas 1996 CSEC and Noncommercial CSEC. including other into and or interchangeably (or to Sexual range agencies digital of our Declaration combat definitions ritual) recently fondling; crimes Sexual is “children”), CSEC and acts of of list defined of of organizations value and CSEC legal children penetration remunerations, forced In involving of abuse; and Exploitation (‘SEC such Exploitation of victims sexual other this references. genital CSEC or remedies NGOs. as and child and as marriage, with sense, worth. and there follows: specifically and items rape, we Agenda present and CSEC sex of sexual suggest youth are to the of or acts The This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. It comprises sexual abuse by the adult and remuneration in cash or kind to the childor a third personor persons.Thechild is treated as a sexual object and as a commercial object. The commercial sexual exploitation of children constitutes a form of coercion and violence against children, and amounts to forced labor and a contemporary form of slavery (Declaration and Agenda for Action for the First World Congress Against the (‘ommercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, 1996). Practitioners, advocates, and academics in the U.S. have adopted this formal definition and Congress further supported the definition of CSEC by including in §1591 (a) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) that sex trafficking of children involves a commercial sex act in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age. Although the TVPA did not define CSEC for the United States it did provide political fraction and funding for service providers and criminal justice agencies to more aggressively focus on CSEC. Moreover, in the 2006 U.S. Mid Term Review on the ‘o,n,nercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in America, it was clarified that “the four forms of CSEC, as demarcated in the outcome summary of the Second World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children [include]: child trafficking, child prostitution, child pornography, and child sex tourism” (Shared hope International, 2006, p. 6). 2 Using these definitions as boundaries, researchers are developing estimation methodologies to better understand the magnitude of this problem. The most cited estimate of CSEC is from the report, The Conunercial Sexual Exploitation of C7iildren hi the U.S., Canada, a,,d Mexico (Estes & Weiner, 2001). Estes and Weiner (2001) report that each year in the United States as many as 300,000 children are at risk of being sexually exploited. These findings were the result of a study conducted from January 1, 1999 to March 31, 2001, that included interviews and focus groups with key informants; reviews of national and sub-national statutes and international agreements related to CSEC; and several statistical surveys produced by governmental and nongovernmental agencies. Their estimate of children at risk of becoming victims of CSEC was based on data covering 17 at-risk categories. These categories included “runaway, thrownaway, and homeless children and youth as well as children who engage in commercial sexual exploitation while living in their own homes, i.e., high school students who perform sexual services for their peers, sexual minorities, female members of youth gangs, juveniles living in or near U.S. border cities and who cross into Canada and Mexico for sexual purposes, [and] three categories of youth who fall victim to on-line sexual victimization each year (Estes and Weiner. 2001, P. 140).” The authors note that their 2 Child sex tourism is a form of CSEC committed by men or women who travel from one place to another, usually from a richer country to one that is less developed, and there engage in sexual acts with children, defired as anyone aged under 18 (ECPAT International accessed online at hitp /w, pat,nctien ‘C 1’delinitio ( ild e\wurinnhhn on May 2, 2007). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. estimate is in addition to the more than 105,000 children that are substantiated or indicated to be victims of child sex abuse annually within the United States. While the Estes and Weiner (2001) estimate is the most widely cited it is not without its limitations. The authors argue that “a different type of study from ours—one that uses a different methodology and a higher investment of resources is needed to carry out a national prevalence and incidence survey that could produce an actual headcount of the number of identifiable commercially sexually exploited children in the United States and the frequency with which they engage in such behaviors (Estes & Weiner, 2001, p. 165).” To date, no such study has been funded or produced. However, studies have been conducted on child sexual exploitation and how these exploitative acts intersect with CSEC (see Edwards, iritani & Hallfors, 2006; Green, Ennett & Ringwalt, 1999). 2.2 Characteristics of CSEC Victims Research suggests that the average age a child first falls victim to CSEC is 13 or 14 (Friedman, 2005; Barnitz, 2001). Some contend that exploiters are seeking out younger victims for reasons such as a belief that one cannot contract Iliv from having sex with a virgin or young child (Friedman, 2005; Andrews. 2004: Barnitz, 2001; Spangenberg, 2001): While poverty, and the limited educational, occupational, and social mobility opportunities deeply entrenched within it, pushes many children into vulnerable situations where they could become victims of CSEC. one study found that it may be less of a leading factor for CSEC in developed countries such as the United States (U.S. Department of State, 2006; Estes & Weiner, 2001). In the United States, more often than poverty, family dysfunction, family sexual abuse, school or other social failures, the presence of existing adult prostitution markets, and drug dependency by family members or CSEC victims are cited by victims as leading factors contributing to 4CSEC. It has been documented that some victims of CSEC, as well as those who exploit children, have histories of prior sexual abuse (Spangenberg, 2001; Estes and Weiner, 2001). In a nationally representative study of the victimization of children and youth ages 2 to 17 years, it was found that 1 in 12 children and youth had experienced a sexual victimization within the study year (Finkeihor, Ormrod. Turner & Hamby, 2005). Moreover, it was reported that 97 percent of children and youth with any sexual For additional reasons we suggest reading. Cooper. S.. Estes. R.. Giardino. A.. Kellogg. N.. and Victh. V.. (2006) Child Sexual Exploitation Quick Reference: For Healthcare, Social Service, and Law Enfoicemeni Professionals. G . W. Medical Publishing, reference I-S78060-2 I-X. Estes and weiner claify myriad factors contnhuting to CSEC as belonging to one of three major groups: I) macro/contextual external factors; 2) micro/situational external factors: and 3) individual/internal factors. For a more detailed discussion of these factors, please see The commercial Secual Exploitation of Children in The (/5., Canada, and Mexico. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. victimization would experience future victimizations (Finkeihor, et al., 2005). Additionally, sexual abuse is cited most often as the reason children run away from home and it is these youth who are at-risk of becoming victims of CSEC (Finkeihor et al., 2005). National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, or Thrownaway Children (NISMART) data estimates that nationally 450,000 children run away from home each year and 13,000 run away from juvenile facilities (NISMART-2, 2002). In a study of prostituted children and youth in New York City it was found that: After only an average of thirty-six to forty-eight hours on the stTeets, young people are solicited for sex in exchange for money, food or shelter, and their risk for sexual exploitation is increased by the lack ot an adequate social safety net to care for them. In New York, there arc only about five hundred beds in shelters for the estimated 15,000- 20,000 homeless youth. Most shelters are for adults twenty-one and over, and most children are too scared to go to them because of their history of abuse from adults (Spangenberg, 2001). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This study begins to show the possible connections between sexual abuse, running away, and CSEC that may help shape the profile of a CSEC victim. In addition, while it was once thought that females were the primary victims of CSEC, new findings and growing anecdotal evidence point to the fact that boys and transgender youth may be equally at risk of and involved in sexual exploitation (Estes & Weiner, 2001). A recent study on CSEC in New York State supports the above findings and offers additional insight into the lives of CSEC victims (Gragg, Petta, Bernstein, Eisen & Quinn, 2007). The New YorkPrevalence Stiuli of Co,nn,ercia1l Sexual/i’ Exploited Children was commissioned by the New York State Legislature through the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. The study used a combination of mail surveys to 159 agencies in four New York City (NYC) boroughs and seven Upstate counties, telephone interviews of public and private agencies that handle CSEC cases, and a focus group of 20 non-police agencies. The study found rates of previous child sex abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction. Victims were also predominantly female. However, when comparing children from Upstate New York to those in NYC differences were found. The number of CSEC victims in NYC outnumbered those identified Upstate by more than five times. There were also differences in gender. None of the CSEC victims in NYC identified as male, however 13 percent of those in Upstate counties were boys aged 13 or younger. No transgender children were identified Upstate, but 3 1 children were identified in NYC. Children in the Upstate counties were more likely to be younger than those in NYC. Lastly, with respect to race, 47 percent of Upstate CSEC victims were white, compared with 67 percent black victims in NYC. These findings help to further refine our knowledge about CSEC victim characteristics, suggesting important differences may exist between victims from urban and non-urban locations. 2.3 Characteristics of Child Sex Exploiters While most studies on CSEC focus on the causes of this crime and its victims, there are few studies that focus on its perpetrators. Estes and Weiner (2001) identify six categories of child sex exploiters which include: (1) pedophiles; (2) “transient males” including members of the military, truck drivers, seasonal workers; (3) “opportunistic” exploiters who do not target children, per Se, but who abuse whoever is available, often including children; (4) pimps; (5) traffickers; and (6) other 5juveniles. Research shows that the majority of child sexual exploiters are males between the ages of 20 and 65, however, some women and same-sex peers who are already on the streets engaging in prostitution, pornography, or trafficking have also been identified as perpetrators (Barnitz, 2001; Estes and Weiner, 2001). One misconception about child sex Some practitioners expressed difficulties understanding the differences between terms such as “pimp” and “trafficker” and other language used in the CSEC field. We address this point in Chapter 4 of this report. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. exploiters is that they are all pedophiles. Research shows that pedophiles make tip a portion of sex exploiters but are not the majority of CSEC offenders (Andrews, 2004). Recent studies are also showing that characteristics of perpetrators may differ based on location. In urban areas, CSEC victims are more likely to be exploited by adult strangers, while CSEC victims in non-urban settings are more likely to be exploited by an adult or minor acquaintance (Gragg et al., 2007). Another type of CSEC perpetrator is exploiters who are associated with criminal activity such as gangs and organized. ethnically-based brothels and massage parlors (Shared Hope International, et al.. 2006). The following two examples are by no means representative of a problem that can be found across all races, ethnicitics, age groups, and social classes. Our purpose for including them here is to inform readers about a type of CSEC perpetrator that has been documented by law enforcement. Hmong gangs are known to be involved in violent crimes against non-members——themost frequent of which are rape and prostitution involving minors (some as young as 12 years old). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Hmong gangs in Warren, Michigan have been involved in the kidnap, rape and prostitution of young girls. In April 1998, three girls from ages 12 to 14 came to the attention of authorities as being held against their will for two days in a motel. Further investigation revealed 33 victims between January 1997 and April 1998 that had been held anywhere from Iwo days to three months. This case was so complex that it took two years and was pursued in three phases. In the first phase, 350 indictments were handed down on 14 suspects, a 323— count indictment was handed down on several suspects in the second phase, and the third phase involved nine victims and 20 suspects in an 826-count indictment. The lead investigator reported that 90 percent of the victims were lured, kidnapped, held against their will, repeatedly raped and forced into prostitution, and assaulted and threatened when they tried to leave (Straka, 2003). Latino brothels have been involved in the sex trafficking of minors. In 2006, FBI agents in Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee raided three brothels uncovering trafficking of minors into prostitution. It was found that children were being lured and smuggled from El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico under false pretenses of gaining employment in restaurants, only to be forced into prostitution upon arrival. Although brothel owners were arrested, many brothels continue to operate in the same area and are believed to be engaged in similar activity (The City Paper Online, 2007). Exploiters of youth are likely to continue because it is viewed as a profitable enterprise and in some countries there is minimal or no legal risk for engaging in acts of CSEC. According to the FBI, human trafficking, the majority of which is the sex trafficking of minors, generates an estimated $9.5 billion in annual revenue for organized crime This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. networks worldwide (U.S. Department of State, 2006). Also, while the United States is not considered a destination country for child sex tourism, U.S. citizen involvement in child sex tourism abroad also contributes to the profits made from CSFC. Americans are believed to make up 25 percent of the global sex tourism industry, and as much as 38 to 80 percent in such countries as Cambodia and Costa Rica. respectively, where it is known that the majority of the sex tourism industry is comprised of minors under the age of 18 (Song, 2007). In fact, an often unintended consequence of CSEC legislation and increased prosecution is that exploiters often flee countries with harsh penalties, such as the United States, and travel to countries where loopholes in laws against CSEC exist or where there are no existing CSEC laws (U.S. Department of State, 2006). 2.4 International Actions to Combat CSEC Assessing the actions countries have taken to combat CSEC has been stymied by a lack of uniform data being systematically collected over time (Henschel, 2003). Despite these shortcomings, many important steps in the fight against CSEC have been and continue to be taken both internationally and domestically. The magnitude of work being canied out internationally by dedicated organizations and countries to uphold human rights protocols, devise and enforce their own laws, and identify and provide services to victims is too great to capture in this report. Instead, we highlight a few international actions to demonstrate the work being done to fight CSEC worldwide. 2.4.1 United Nations: Conventions and World Meetings In response to growing concern over the exploitation of children, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, became the first agreement obligating countries to recognize the human rights of all children. In the treaty, freedom from exploitation is included as a basic right. Specifically,7 Article 34 of the UNCRC enumerates this provision with respect to sexual exploitation: State Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, State Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: 6 Practitioners c spoke with for this study suggested that the S9.5billion dollar amount is seen as a low number because it is based off estimates ofonly transnational trafficking and does not include all the profits generated from domestic trafficking. With better data collection of human trafficking and CSEC-specific infonriation. especially CSEC occurnng within the United States, the field will be better able to assess the potential revenue generated from all aspects of CSEC. We address this point in Chapter 4. Children are defined by the United Nations as being people under 18 years of age. See hup:. \ ‘..6 .unIc.crr•ur. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; (c) The exploitive use of children in pornographic performances and materials. Of all the human rights treaties, the UNCRC is the most ratified by member countries. As of March 2007, only the United States and Somalia have not ratified the Convention. The UNCRC is important, not only in committing all countries to recognize a child’s human rights, but also in holding countries accountable before the international community for the protection and enforcement of those rights. Flowever, while the UNCRC holds countries accountable in theory, in practice, the treaty lacks prosecutorial enforcement power. Further, its language is general in scope and unable to guide countries on specific measures to protect children against sexual exploitation. A next step was the First World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, organized by the Swedish government, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking in Children for9 Sexual Purposes (ECPAT International). This meeting, held in Stockholm in 1996, brought together representatives from 122 countries and a delegation of 47 youth. Participants, unanimously adopted a Declaration and Agenda/br Action defining CSEC and committing participants to the formation of a global partnership in the fight against child sexual exploitation. Participating countries charged themselves with devising national plans of action against CSEC and with collecting data on case investigations and prosecutions. As a follow-up, a Second World Congress was held in Yokohama, Japan in 2001. At this meeting it was learned that existing legislation and policies were generally considered inadequate or not enforced (Van Bueren, 2001) and that only 34 countries had developed national plans of action and 26 countries were working toward developing their plans.’° Member countries are continuously encouraged to convene their own mid term reviews on progress towards implementing national plans of action in anticipation of future World Congress meetings (ECPAT website, 2007). As with all U.N. resolutions, resolutions are voluntarily accepted (or not) by individual countries. UNICEF stands for the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. In 1953, the name of the organization was changed to the United Nation’s Children’s Fund, however it is still referred to by the acronym “UNICEF.” °At the time of the current report. the United Slates had not de eloped a national plan to ight CSEC. For a comprehensive listing of countries who have developed national plans of action, see: v .c.citns;...f!!..icp.cf.i t This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 2.4.2 Other Actions Take,, bi’ the United Nations The United Nations has taken several additional steps to address CSEC. First, in order to fully comply with the [JNCRC and to support the efforts of the two world meetings, the United Nations devised the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the (‘hild on the Sale of(’hildren, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography. This added measure extended the reach of the UNCRC by providing a more explicit safeguard against the sexual exploitation of children through the criminalization of activities involving the sale and illegal adoption of children, as well as the prostitution of children and pornography. The protocol was devised in 2000.” Second, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) also focuses on CSEC issues. UNICRI was established in 1967 to support countries worldwide with crime prevention and criminal justice efforts. To this end, UNICRI conducts research, provides training and technical cooperation, and carries out documentation and information activities. Part of this work includes the development of a searchable database, known as the International Repository of Institutions against Sexual Exploitation of Minors (IRISEM). IRISEM is periodically updated with information on institutions around the world that are committed to reducing and preventing trafficking and the sexual exploitation of 2minors.’ Third, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has also taken measures to address CSEC. As an office, UNODC works to leverage global attention and resources into initiatives that can control drugs and prevent crime and terrorism. In the fight against human trafficking, UNODC offers practical assistance to countries such as supporting legislative reform, developing anti-trafficking strategies, and providing countries with resources to implement their plans. To specifically address CSEC, UNODC drafted the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Pecrons, Especially Womenand Children (2OOO. This Protocol supplements the Convention Against Transnational Organized (‘rime. The intent of the Protocol is to combat and prevent human trafficking by holding ratii’ing countries accountable for appropriate changes in domestic laws, to encourage international cooperation, and to promote the protection of victims.” It recognizes that all persons should be protected from trafficking, but focuses on women and children, and elicits specific language with respect to CSEC in defining trafficking and exploitation as: The United States ratified the Optional Protocol to the convention on the Rights ofthe child on the Lile of children, child Pro2litution, and child Pornogapin’ in December 2002. For a list of other countries that have ratified the protocol. see: htp: \inhch,.cI: mini i,,2(’ rircaicstam-opchim. For a list of reser ations and declarations to the protocol. see: ht,p: \VX .,mlichr,cuihtriimumt26crci,cat,dccLir-jzc.h[m. 2 To access this database, see: hirp. u’. .,,n,cri.,i n wJ_tmmck1neinii1php ‘ For specific language. see: tli) ‘\\3\,iflçJ:r,.or l)o ( ‘nLio ,.,ini’c Lii:’ onx ‘it fl’( r cog. d1 language ratified Convention Nations, against ILO opportunities in Fourth, public research represented (U.S. Thus, c. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 1999 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) established and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. the Department international of awareness I) c) b) a) ‘ the the cons and The lLO The brings reports, likely pornography Work The conflict; labor, trafficking All exploitation International ention, United United define Convention the put p:gj) for forms practices another other include, or of coercion, persons, use, together first into Contention which, to practitioner women see: including Rihe benefits a States States campaigns of the position protection harm foms time h force State of 182, person, of at : recruitment, iatified signed worst by similar of of slavery or a by to government children, Labour see: means and of the (cn.nti’nJc trafficking abduction. minimum, of in children, Fact achieve for forced sexual its the the vulnerability hUp:\6ws\.ilo.org for 182, forms 2000, health, (e.g., toolkits, to men or against pornographic nature protocol con\ention of the slavery, Sheet, or Organization offering transportation, the Elimination exploitation, the debt to or purpose practices global the of which of including threat safety in consent obtain compulsory representatives, fraud, in or child and exploitation CSEC 2OOl). servitude persons bondage December or on the meetings of of or of provides operates February of pubbe or of labour circumstances decent exploitation. use the similar performances 5 a forced deception, is morals transfer, a of CSEC. child (ILO), or giving also person of 2000. Like was delict and of Worst ihe recruitment force 12. labor with jobs the added technical and to for covered removal defined 1999. serfdom For UNICRI, or of harboring having employers a prostitution of Articles slandarth, slavery, or or frornis prostitution, receiving specialized Exploitation exhibitions). specific respect in children. 6 the other services, For strength humane in of abuse control in under a cooperation which and forms of organs. ipcçr.1.iJcatpi list or language of UNODC such 3(a), an to of of receipt children and of of C’liild slavery forced payments international CSEC over others shall to other this of working power agency as it 3(b), for workers the ofprotocol, is of the countries Labour, protocol the or or publishes carried or or global as: for projects and sale of on production compulsory conditions. use to the 3(d) entioi that see: For and instrument fight adopted out, which advance in United specific have and of :wxtibn armed is the of This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Finally, in an effort to combat child sex tourisrn, the United Nations’ World Tourism Organization (WTO), an intergovernmental organization that serves as a global forum for tourism policy, along with ECPAT in Sweden, and Nordic Tour Operators, created the Code of Conduct for the Protectioiz of Children from Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism for tourism operators (Shared Hope International, et al., 2006). As of June 2007, 241 travel companies operating from 21 countries in Europe, Asia, North America and Latin America have signed the Code. Also, since 2000 over 30 countries have enacted extraterritorial legislation against child sex tourism resulting in a corresponding increase in prosecutions (The Facts About Child Sex Tourism, 2005). 2.4.3 NGO and Other Actions Take,, There are far too many NGOs doing great work for us to include them all in this report. We only highlight a few here. ECPAT was one of the organizers for the First World Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in 1996. Since then, ECPAT has been a leader in the international fight against CSEC with offices in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Pacific. Although the field offices have diverse activities, ECPAT has identified on its website the following main objectives for its overall organization: (1) to perform monitoring activities to help governments comply with the U.N Convention on the Rights of the Child; (2) to help build and develop the ECPAT network; (3) to combat child sex tourism; (4) to prevent child pornography on the Internet; (5) to conduct research on trafficking in children; (6) to train caregivers; (7) to circulate information and provide expert advice on best practices for law enforcement to find and punish child sex offenders, and promote best law practices; (8) to encourage and support the participation of youth in the fight against CSEC; and (9) to educate the public about CSEC and to disseminate information. ECPAT also works to build capacity in other organizations, such as the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), and has been instrumental in helping make CSEC a priority issue for them (ECPAT International website, 2007). In addition, ECPAT has created a database of information on what they consider “good practices” in combating CSEC internationally according to five main categories: (I) cooperation and coordination; (2) prevention; (3) protection; (4) recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration; and (5) child participation. Programs highlighted on their website 6 Article 3(c) encompasses, “The use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking ofdrugs as defined in the relevant international treaties.” The U.S. Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat trafficking in Persons estimates that over a million children are exploited in the global commercial sex trade each year (rhc Facts About Cluld Sex Tounsm, 2005). IS To read the code. please see: This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. include Law Enforcement against Sexual Exploitation of Children (LEASEC) in Cambodia. and Costa Rica’s Casa Alianza’s database of sex tourist information. LEASEC is a collaborative project between the Cambodian Ministry of Interior and five international agencies: UNICEF, the International Office of Migration (IOM),’ World Vision International, Save the Children Norway, and the United Nations9 Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Research findings show that about 30 percent of those commercially sexually exploited are between the ages of 12 and 17 and that law enforcement have challenges identifying potential incidents of CSEC and responding to CSEC victims who are among this age. As a result, the primary work of LEASEC is to train police officers, judges, and prosecutors. The project is innovative in its collaboration with numerous international agencies and has led to an increase in investigations and victim rescues (ECPAT International website, 2007). Casa Alianza has worked in Central America for over 20 years and is recognized as a leader in service care delivery for street children and other at-risk children. Casa Alianza serves more than 9,000 children annually in residential and non-residential programs. In addition to their direct service work, Casa Alianza advocates for reliable data on arrests and convictions of CSEC offenders at the regional, national, and international level. In 1997, Casa Alianza’s regional office in Costa Rica raised public concerns about what they witnessed as growing levels of child sexual abuse committed by tourists to Central America—-particularly Honduras, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. Faced with little support from these governments, with the exception of Honduras, they developed and continue to publicize a database of sex tourists convicted of abusing children, and of any violations of children’s rights as a result of tourism. Casa Alianza is using this database as a tool for change. For example, about 60 percent of tourists to Central America come from North America, primarily the United States, and none of these tourists need passports. With the imposition of Megan’s Law in the United States and the passage of stricter penalties against child sex offenders, Casa Alianza is concerned that many of these offenders are fleeing to Central America where laws are lax and they can arrive undetected. As a result of their publishing information on child sex tourists, offenders that may have otherwise gone free were arrested. Interpol was created in 1923 and is the largest international police organization2 in the world, composed of 186 member countries. Interpol helps members prevent and combat international crime, and has dedicated resources to combat human trafficking. Notably, in 2001 Interpol created the Interpol Child Abuse Image Database (ICAID), which IOM is an intergovernmental body tasked with assisting with issues of migration. One of its many tasks is to provide assistance to victims of trafficking andto help its 120 member states and 29 observer states prevent trafficking in persons (IOM website 2007). 20 For more information on Casa Alianza see: litp. r2’(SE t]cx.sp This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. contains hundreds of thousands of images of child sexual abuse from member countries. This tool helps countries share information leading to the identification of child victims and the prosecution of exploiters (Interpol website, 2007). The actions of organizations mentioned in this section help illuminate the fact that CSEC is global in scope and effectively dealing with CSEC in one country may lead to unintended consequences in another. However, the work of these organizations, and many others like them, is an encouraging sign of the progress that is occurring. 2.5 United States Actions to Combat CSEC Although the United States has yet to ratify the UNCRC, the United States began developing its strategy to address CSEC around the time of the First World Congress in 1996. The U.S. plan involved coordinating the efforts of various government agencies and domestic and international NGOs. This section discusses significant changes in U.S. legislation against CSEC, U.S. government agency efforts, and the efforts of various NGOs across the country. It illuminates the scope of actions taken to combat CSEC within the United States, as well as acts committed by U.S. citizens abroad. This section in particular frames the structure of the present study and the findings presented in chapters 3 and 4. Specifically, the information presented here is intended to help readers better understand the context in which law enforcement, prosecutors, and service providers are working by highlighting the awareness of CSEC offenses in the United States and the tools put in place to prevent this crime and to prosecute its offenders. It also helped us form the boundaries of data we included in the study dataset. 2.5.1 United States Legislation Ai,ned at combating CSEC Prior to the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, prosecutors addressed crimes involving CSEC using the Mann Act of 1910 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known as the Crime Bill). The Mann Act, commonly called the White Slave Traffic Act, was enacted in 1910 to fight against forced prostitution in keeping with the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed in 1865 (Katyal, 1993).21 However, the Act did not explicitly protect minors until it was amended in 1978. Amendments passed in 1986 and 1994 further protected minors from slavery-like practices. These amendments extended the reach of the Act in three important ways: (1) The Act became gender neutral focusing on both males and females; (2) Specific attention was paid to the transportation of minors, defined as those under the age of 18; and (3) The amendments For background information on how the Mann Act applies to states, we suggest reading about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Interstate Commerce Clause. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. broadened the Act to prosecute against “any sexual activity” not just prostitution. The FBI investigates possible Mann Act cases and refers them directly to U.S. Attorneys. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) located within the Criminal Division supervises the prosecution of these cases (Criminal Resource Manual, 2007). The Crime Bill passed in 1994 includes a provision that specifically address the growing concerns about child sex tourism. This provision, known as the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act, makes it a crime to travel outside of the United States with the intent of engaging in sexual activity with a minor. While this provision represents a significant step towards fighting child sex tourism, few cases have been prosecuted using this law (Andrews, 2004). As a result, the Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002 was passed to address these concerns. Perhaps most significantly, the Act removed the intent requirement and criminalized the actions of sex tour operators (Fraley, 2005). Despite what preceded it, the TVPA of 2000 is considered by most to be the seminal piece of U.S. legislation leading the fight against CSEC. As the first comprehensive law to combat human trafficking, the TVPA federally criminalized human trafficking while focusing its efforts on prevention, protection, and prosecution. Educational and public awareness campaigns were authorized through its focus on prevention. In order to better protect victims of severe forms of human trafficking, which include both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, the TVPA authorizes access to benefits and social services such as housing, educational programs, job training, health care, and legal services. In addition, non-U.S. citizen victims may be able to obtain a T-visa classification allowing them to become temporary U.S. residents. The TVPA was significant in extending the broad range of services and benefits traditionally available to refugees to victims of trafficking in the United States. Adding teeth to the TVPA is its provision on prosecution and punishment. Specifically with respect to CSEC, traffickers who exploit children under the age of 14 using force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of a commercial sex act can receive a sentence of life in prison. If the crime does not involve force, fraud, or coercion, but the victim is between the ages of 14 and 18 years old, the trafficker is eligible for up to 20 years in prison (TVPA Fact Sheet, 2000). As required by the TVPA, the U.S. Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons report monitors global acceptance and enforcement of the international protocols listed earlier, with the exception of the Code of Conductfor the Protection of Children fro,n Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism. 22 Countries are ranked according to four categories representing levels of compliance with the TVPA—tier 1, tier 2, tier 2 special watch list, and tier 3. Tier 1 countries demonstrate (or have made a good faith effort to Snice “trafficking” includes trafficking humans for forced labor, the TIP Report also monitors compliance with the Optional Protocol to the ( oni’entto,i on i/ic’ Rig/its oJ the child in .4nned (‘oiiJlic!. the ILO Co,iic’ntion 29 on Forced Labor, and ILO Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labor. maximum to combined Interagency formed trafficking State Persons, General victims the trafficking commit Hope PROTECT protocols One where strengthen more enforcement cases was Recommendations national In Persons compliant sanctions the combat the countries of demonstrate) combat This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not 2002, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) the TVPA Tier TVPA that year and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Office proactive because International TVPA, appropriate 24 23 in the acts severe to Report, 2 For For 2006)21 summit legislation the later, for passage 2001, fully child from incarceration Watch (TVPRA with produce the in in requirements ability Act full full Task to of U.S. strategies, persons, investigation persons that of and ability text text Monitor Congress forms CSEC meet the approach expanded the sex to 2006). on inequities Force—a List Department The of of they to of submit (Protecting coordinate were United et TVPA a tourism and legislation the legislation, of the sue the yearly of of al., (Assessment and for and SPOG 2003) Trafficking vigorously and (2) in policy the human requirements but made their PROTECT enacted 2006; to countries territorial evidence increased the created and States, and enforce cabinet-level in Combat (CST) government these report are see: created meets federal how traffickers of United Our to: may often about prosecution, Fraley, trafficking. Victims working Justice the cases, such (1) a investigate, to both Children, of the existing who or be quarterly jurisdiction 11 Senior Trafficking maximum Act adversely PROTECT protecting Congress educational develop efforts U.S. States, of data ReauthoriLation system subject as 2005). nJ’co at (4) (DOJ), are to and the task in to a home Government to fight Policy loss federal improve. establish laws, and not Countries TVPA. to the 2002). the to the force, model deals to prosecute, affect on incarceration combat Office children of showing to follow-up ggj-hJn Moreover, (5) in child and PROTECT TVPRA Act non-humanitarian, U.S. campaigns (3) Operating U.S. prosecute foreign Protection Persons district use with chaired abroad. policies, (Public victim-focused encourage the F In sexual supporting placed cr\.l)lO86:klljO8hlSY icr of trafficking government vertical Efforts 2003, from handling child evidence convict Justice of 2 on assistance court, Act Fact the countries by 2003 Act against Americans Group from Law exploitation. 23 In activities on laws/statutes prostitution. of2003, victims the 2003 the to prosecution fact, prosecutors Sheet, contains the Programs mandated and their expanded Combat 108-21) of (U.S. of U.S. 1 Secretary 5 (SPOG) efforts non-trade-related sex tier reauthorization see: and child with (Trafficking increasing do to sentence and claims. 2006). of government 30 abroad Department tourism, 3 not victim-sensitive the the 30 list to Trafficking prostitution offenders. to years (OJP) and the A U.S. strategies The to fully on of most further years combat President’s key are The violators take Attorney These State who efforts (Shared efforts gave hosted non- meet in finding severe a added of of and in to a John’s http crimes. 28 Children and The the effort initiative While 2.5.2 child protect juveniles. detailed “any were protection or amended penalties piece Finally, (Assessment human 2005 The U.S. ten incarceration This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not life.” been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) various years with Innocence TVPRA and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Law dollars) term in increased TVPRA of to significant, 28 26 2 Goveriiinental trafficking children the provisions the combat Examples For legislation For Review. See Penalties involvement (NCMEC), against for As from in Ic of of It forms United full full Fraley, Adam Germany, certain a years established of children. of in penalties included part text text possible Lost 70,445 from U.S. Japan 2005 from of CSEC. child A. of of of it cities for and Walsh or States, of contained passed the the initiative, is Child types CSEC. task “5 Government Agency (2005). reauthorized CSEC life” the from the (Fraley, trafficking. . not and Adam expanded include: Trafficking for Specifically, pilot ci-cij: imprisonment to Additionally, grant Sex forces initiative, Child aggravated whether of the 30 to (‘ST in three CEOS Walsh fl.’ Tourism and A Actio,, programs CSEC, “not Detroit, relation years” . in passage which programs 2005). few \‘ictims Protection in were the years to victim Child Efforts less and the Legislation the headed citizen notable further Michigan; in NCMEC act among to penalties began sexual dti:i to formed Protection the Protection world, of many of TVPA or than the to “10 further assistance CSEC. 27 for “not federal a establish to United or : National ensure and fine by years agency in 30 Hanisburg, Under many state Combat abuse government non-citizen, and I compared in through and more ( 2003, for the years refine Reauthoriiation Safety of U.S. States legislation cn the Safety or and the conduct The that FBI’s other up of programs residential efforts Center PROTECT than life.” is or Trafficking Pennsylvania; cities U.S. to children h:II<5J 1 and local Act 2007.26 the bill Act, the life” provisions with one Crimes 20 agencies are target see: dignity relating Attorney’s are dramatically of Penalties largest for with law Act alone years” million Act: (H.R. in twelve 2006 protected J!.h97cn: .tir discussed rehabilitative were With of Missing the enforcement Does and government high Against 2005. in U.S. and that are to 4472, is to related Atlantic United Persons, also yen respect for years it :i’C the child volumes see: “any Office Really rights working marks .‘1.:J! government and and increases sexual here. (roughly increased Children most Title City. in to States prostitution term Protect?, upheld. Exploited to facilities of to 2006). efforts (USAO) Australia, the the New recent II). of CSEC, abuse every to combat of U.S. these $8,341 combat Jersey. squad St. from years The to were for the another Lenn fraud. officer hupre.carch instances exploitation serves CSEC DOJ’s (Fact According involving Identification pursue through cases to to enforcement Children funding Project In children, initiative engaging pornography, collaborates Within criminal DOJ’s convictions Initiative train each investigate This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not February been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) on often as and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. and cnme NGOs Sheet: May to violations Civil a of 30 An leads; Civil locality; Safe DOJ’s resource NCMEC that ensure for to Kidnapping child In of statutes (ICAC) 2. that and in had child (Britannica subject ia to children. 1996, 2007). serves the information” Rights Department (Becker, 2006, criminal and Childhood with Rights personnel sexual DOJ, (3) international programs and is the made erscon center Criminal maximum the pornography, creation comprised him (2) the law as increased relating Task and transportation the prosecute is U.S. exploitation. The DOJ’s Concise same in Division or defined well for case Division 697 enforcement sexual 2007). 93 her pursuit 2005, NCMEC Congress is the Forces, and an function sar aims of Division to and arrests as USAQ’s of coordination public. to Encyclopedia Criminal as jail instrument involuntary 48 parental federal of funding Justice non-profit the the federal child activity, is (5) website to and established of coercion a time; ICAC as cnme parents. also the partnership with exploitation achieve leads an of community Criminal is to sexual on containing indictment NCMEC, involvement Project women Division of has servitude, prosecutors responsible kidnapping. and (4) CEOS accessed prosecute Task 160 interstate CSEC. 2 law seizing. from by a the organizations. and training CvherTipline” staffing are: enforcement, exploitation Exploited CEOS informations Forces Safe a which presented Division enticement or online NCMEC’s in confining, of formal of awareness (1) announced and an children U.S. violations As or children attempt Childhood, of for charged in integrated the and at Child other across was accusation international htjj of all child by and prosecuting Attorneys, ihat abducting. national both the January a Unit cases federal, to OJP others created grand interstate offenses and suw: CybcrTipline federal, the and demand and its pornography FBI’s the 1,447 (ECU) of deal public of dedicated federal, jury. Project indictments, about 2006). with educational country. federal a orcarrying obscenity. Nsr complaint crime 2007, state, in a with Internet Innocent child sithin may travel state, ransom, human Definition against the for a 1987 that strategic issues call Safe state, issues and law the the the exploitation away and $14 and to is and The or to to NCMEC. Crimes trafficking issued line Innocence sun’ounding 1,503 CEOS purpose programs. Childhood related report obtained in local sexually Images and enforce Child million local a and enticement of furtherance five person plan for by CSEC. suspecied local partners defendants 136 The main a law Against from: reporting to Victim prosecuting Unit by of specific abuse cases federal the in child ECU and Lost efforts force of sexual goals to or California opened human Motivans Federal Researchers Identification images in Finland, ICE promote combining agencies); of Postal web four sex investigate Operation CSEC NYC Enforcement protection, in enforcement, whether In networks data and leadership, is The trafficking creation trafficking online This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not a also Fulton been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) addition, tourists, National agents victimization. portal significant Office and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. collection and Inspeclion trafficking and involved were (Operation accessed Justice Norway, The cooperation a of child and County. such another particular (3) Predator of providing to were and and enforcement crimes. the coordination, of Megan’s OJJDP from and for (ICE) Child access Kyckelhahn System, C and ICE court the online Juvenile pornography. Statistics as Human and arrest prosecution efforts offenses other in responsible Service, the stationing Sweden, the statutes in Georgia Predator Law efforts personnel, Most Victim at tracking is unit hinds On all child Atlanta and http*ae.cao Bureau services ICAC foreign an roughly predatory Interpol database that Trafficking Justice publicly January and and Program initiative created coordination notably, and direct from to U.S. is (2006) and with Identification comprise Fact efforts. task of the system at-risk for combat develop (Fulton of Additionally, national is resources to and ICE 1,230 and efforts Scotland a Secret 2001 Justice plans Department 31, providing services available victims individuals sex Sheet, forces as found on in with between state Delinquency Prosecution agents offender of a 2007, which May The an County), CSEC. children Operation to new result to predators, to Service, CSEC. on respect Statistics effort and 2004). 2005 to and that 2, that duplicate (Shared build data such System cross-border 2007). then strategies state registry prevent abroad leads would through the of is (including local more of led As (Motivans to have system, supporting as Georgia the This global to DOJ. U.S. Attorney Homeland Megan’s Predator: Unit shed an to Prevention to (Office human its (BJS) hope (in CSEC. collect agencies to TVPA than it and been government the office, the data funding Immigration to in work partnership the within light intelligence the of CSEC combat respond aimed arrest communities International half Internet use recently traffickers, and would identified ICAC the General Law OJJDP data of the (1) first with they Security on to of Attorney (58 2000. this (OJJDP) a Kyckelhahn, of the development enhance at cases, violations on databases; 2 the demonstration of human Task then work to foreign officials predators). percent) 500 analyzed reducing division funds with establishment risk its Gonzales and National on juvenile General in They (DHS) international kind, be individuals and et across Forces, child pornographic nationally located factors Customs NCMEC, trafficking. identification, collaborative al., shared governments of in of (4) also to for the aafrom data is 2006). (2) predators. to 2006). of delinquency Child Denmark, Federal announced the the expand the There being the and indicating program within demand identify, found a the with State matters country. regional of FBI, to involved other child Victim creation a piloted are provide of anti- law single that the DOJ to U.S. for in the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. of the 58 percent of suspects in TVPA offense cases, 23 percent (129 suspects) were for sex trafficking of children. The statutes BJS used to define human trafficking were taken from U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 77 on Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons (U.S.C. § 1581-1594). With respect to children, only one of these statutes directly addresses sex trafficking of children (18:1591). Therefore, while these data are valuable, they only provide a very small glimpse of the larger picture. In addition, the Department of health and 1-lunianServices (HITS) is working to help combat human trafficking and CSLC. The Ill-IS Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) is involved in the fight against CSEC by offering programs such as transitional living and street outreach to runaway and homeless youth through its Youth Development Division. The HHS Office of Refugee Relocation (ORR) launched the Rescue and Restore Campaign that provided over $3 million in grants to fund projects that raise awareness of human trafficking and/or provide case management and direct services to victims (Shared hope International, et al., 2006). ORR operates the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program, that assists juvenile victims by establishing their legal status, working with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service within DHS, and providing assistance and 33benefits. ORR also operates the Division of Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Services (DUACS) that provides housing and a wide range of services to unaccompanied alien children under age eighteen who have been apprehended by DIIS immigration officials. III IS is training stall at DUACS shelters to identify CSEC/trafficking4 victims who may be housed in their facilities. Other governmental agencies or offices involved in anti-human trafficking and anti CSEC efforts include: the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Army Criminal Investigative Division, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State, the Criminal Investigative Division of the Department of Labor, and DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime. 2.5.3 NGO Action to Combat (SEC in the United States The variation in agencies involved in combating CSEC speaks to the need for effective coordination, communication, and information sharing (where possible). It also speaks to the scope of CSEC and the complexity involved in the identification and protection of victims, and the prosecution and punishment of traffickers/exploiters. This work would not be complete without the work of NGOs, nonprofits, social service organizations, researchers, victims and survivors of CSEC, and other individuals who further support Two lead voluntary organh/ations, The I utheran Immigration Refugee Services (LIRS) and The United States Catholic Conference (USCC), help ORR with the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor Program. For more information see generally. http://www.acfhhs.gov/ebrochure/unaccompanicd.htm. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. and inform the government’s efforts to prevent, prosecute, and protect against the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Among these are organizations such as ECPAT USA, the Polaris Project, Girls Educational and Mentoring Services (GEMS), Safe Horizon, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST), the Protection Project, Boat People SOS, Children of the Night, Sisters Offering Support, Vital Voices, and Breaking Free, to name a few among many others. These organizations are on the ground, in communities in almost every state, working on a daily basis with CSEC victims in a variety of capacities— providing food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care, counseling, translation services, outreach, legal expertise, life skills programming, job training, and family reunification to survivors of CSEC. in addition, they also provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, and other criminal justice system personnel: serve as advisors on various committees and research projects; organize task forces; and conduct advocacy, outreach, and public awareness campaigns. Through these efforts, innovative approaches in the prevention, protection, and prosecution of CSEC are emerging. For example, the NYC Police Department created a Juvenile Crime Special Projects Squad in which the police conduct street outreach to prostituted youth, attempt to build trust, and refer them to GEMS for services (OJJDP Videoconference: Working Together To Stop the Prostitution of Children). Among ECPAT international’s identified “good practices” in preventing CSEC is Los Angeles Youth Supportive Services, Inc. (LAYSS) which is recognized for being child- centered and supporting youth with issues around gender and sexual orientation by offering services such as professional support, guidance, life-skills, and education. Citing the statistic that up to 50 percent of homeless youth in Los Angeles self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and that homophobia was the driving cause of homelessness leading these youth into survival sex, pornography, or other crimes, LAYSS offers intensive counseling and support services to help youth exit the sex 36trade. Polaris Project, an anti-trafficking organization based in the United States and Japan is a unique example of an organization that combines grassroots activism with policy advocacy at the local, national, and international levels. Founded in 2002, Polaris Project includes four national and international offices and a network of over 6,000 volunteers and supporters. Their comprehensive approach to combating human trafficking For more information on the organizations listed, please visit their websites, For a more comprehensive listing of US. organizations fighting against (‘SEC visit UNICRI’s IRISEM on the United States at IIHCN it \‘ ii itl’uki i nti jpI3j cn ni’,utcsoI ‘nii c&l c oh ut(.,() 36 For more detailed infoimation on this program see: Ihir: 61cpti; Lr key by and the This prosecutions 2.6 million San Corridor between Another Together additional CSEC country accomplish Just operate Nationally, from legislators legislative combines Polaris As This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) the activities a the points Diego, Conclusion as and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. review part a criminal (GEMS • • dozen important international to Training the came example the Coalition, To of help direct are research Exploitation 2001) including: The Sexual and A and activity CA; Japan together. they of their Salvation both of Stop formal countries at together the Agenda justice communities most website, advocates. CSEC and risk intervention, and operate that as national of internationally Trafficking Exploitation the literature related and and the NGO definition Washington, cited community. of Technical states Prostitution Anti-human community, Army cases in for being ojChildren for data GEMS. activities 2007). the 2003 estimate U.S. collaboration to Action They their each reveals (OJJDP collection Slavery in and human sexually Intervention survivor of of to five Policy Assistance As Fellowship year Funded also and its CSEC NGOs host Children. DC) In of for trafficking of policymakers, a In cities that partners—--the trafficking Appendix News Children). Still result within offer in CSEC the the Breaking Program, exploited. strengthen on support, the CSEC is was accomplish in First (Atlantic Exists CSEC US.. the Program training Program. At of 2006, United Program the is made this and a recent World from has A Canada, and policy Glance, United the they Campaign (OJJDP we OJJDP victim academics, summit, anti-CSEC Polaris widespread been City, and States Silence, developed and the on two-year also track (Polaris On Congress advocacy, technical States. their report, 2007). have and NJ; and services, an gave Videoconference: include as Project, OJJDP and and international the many continues Chicago, own, Mexico advocacy organizations attracted Project these collaborative a in analyze Here, The the Against first model assistance and the two and the allocated are as Grassroots Commercial organizations national (Estes 1996 website, we 300,000 movement Bilateral the tables investigations IL; to over state organizations, state the highlight be level, activities Denver, Declaration Commercial across Working through & 200 funding agreement focused and that law summit children 2007). Weiner, Network. Safety they fellows Sexual building. federal for chart $1 the some CO; they their for on and on This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. • • • • summit the namely piece Several despite prosecutors and Prior majority few While to members of dysfunction, or Research their existing 14, start the studies to of and most what the on things Violent involvement the of U.S. of or suggests C the that passage adult passage child addressed focus studies SEC. CSEC preceded family legislation. occurred Innocence in Crime prostitution sexual the on that victims of on of sexual in its United the crimes it, Control the CSEC CSEC. the in perpetrators, exploiters the Lost PROTECT 2003 TVPA average abuse, are TVPA States, markets, focus involving initiative, and cited that (2000) school are Law age on is more worked by however, Act, considered and males the a victims CSEC Enforcement and and child or often causes the drug other together between the the reauthorization using research first than as dependency Breaking PROTECT by of social leading falls this poverty, most the to Act the help shows failures, Mann victim crime ages of to the factors by Act combat be 1994, family Silence of of that Act and family to the the (2003), the 20 contributing CSEC however. of the its seminal TVPA, and CSEC presence national 1910 victims, 65. is 13 made person Child sexual or transaction Child who Child engaged form minor intermediary pornography or the youth. Child Brothel Child victim cities youth sexual own At-risk commercial Appendix (CSEC) Glossary in This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not simulated been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) dominant negotiates and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. a homes, of to and sex sex prostitution engaged pornography as position - stimulation who to minorities, consideration. a engage children - in well on-line person exploiters a who abuse Terms sexually in receives house sexual such explicit (pimp) includes of characteristic which as A-2 cross of an in in youth - under Commercial sexual — power sexually as sexual exchange appropriated contact(s) of female exploitation. - any explicit the who some high into the sexual the - - material any a who Generally, the person person child victimization. use other or activity. Canada controls school members form representation, explicit age control of activities engage conduct. directly of between is which person. that of a under to whose of made students child Examples and or 18. the a value Sexual conduct over visually of in party ith oversees is the or Mexico purposes a Used available commercial youth sexual in depiction child the any or age sexual a other who by benefit child or depicts include, child, synonymously representation gangs, Exploitation and whatever of behavior for the realistic perform of than for activities 18 in lbr an sexual childs prostitution. where sexual from who sexual juveniles order a adult, the runaway, a minor sexual images is means, sexual child is an purposes, the activities directed to exploitation for purposes in or with occurrence of or receive child danger person living remuneration purpose. benefits the thrownaway, of services representing a of juvenile, person a sexual Children towards is and for child in sexual of being significantly either while profit. or from youth where being for Child appearing engaged parts near minor, a their used gratification. or a a and an child living or minor who a commercial a U.S. any of victim exploiter child peers, an for homeless and a older, or in to fall other child. abuser in border real a be is their of a This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Child sex tourism - the commercial sexual exploitation of children by men or women who travel from one place to another, and there they engage in sexual acts with children. Child sex trafficking the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person who has not attained 18 years of age for the purpose of a commercial sex act. Defined in the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act of 2000 as a severe form of sex trafficking. Commercial sexual exploitation of children — comprises sexual abuse by an adult and remuneration in cash or kind to the child or a third person or persons. The child is treated as a sexual object and as a commercial object. The commercial sexual exploitation of children constitutes a fonn of coercion and violence against children, and amounts to forced labor and a contemporary form of slavery. Domestic trafficking — any form of human trafficking that occurs within the United States. Domestic victims - victims of commercial sexual exploitation or human trafficking who are generally United States citizens. Forced prostitution the act of being forced by a third party to engage in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money. The prostitution of children is an inherently forced act. Foreign national victims — victims of commercial sexual exploitation who are not United States citizens, but who are victimized while in the United States. Human trafficking - as defined by the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, severe forms of trafficking in persons means (a) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18years of age; or (b) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force. fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude. peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. Juvenile — a person under the age of 18. Used synonymously with child, minor, and youth. Juvenile facilities — places where youth are housed such as, juvenile detention centers, group homes, residential treatment centers, and shelters for runaway and homeless youth. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Minor - a person under the age of 18. Used synonymously with child, youth, and juvenile. Noncommercial child sex acts the sexual abuse or exploitation of a child which is void of any exchanges for monetary or financial gain. Pedophile one affected with sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. Pimp a person who solicits customers for a prostituted child or a brothel, in return for a share of the earnings. Runaway children — a child who leaves home without permission and stays away overnight; or a child 14 years old or younger (or older and mentally incompetent) who when away from home chooses not to return when supposed to and stays away overnight; or a child 15 years old or older who when away from home chooses not to return when supposed to and stays away for two nights. Sex industry — the sector of the economy in which sexual acts, performances, or images are exchanged for money. Survival sex - sex in exchange for necessities needed to survive while generally living on the streets. Survivor — a person who has previously been a victim of child commercial sexual exploitation. Thrown-away children a child who is told to leave home by a parent or other household adult and no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child by the adult, and the child is out of the household overnight; or a child who is away from home and is prevented from returning home by a parent or other household adult and no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child by a household adult, and the child is out of the household overnight. Victim — a person who is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions; a person that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment; and/or tricked or duped. Vulnerable situations — situations in which a child may be placed at risk of being commercially sexually exploited such as high levels of family dysfunction including substance abuse, physical and/or emotional abuse, and living in poverty with limited opportunities for advancement. a This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) a— and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. a C a a a aa- a a C C arJ a a C a C a a a a C a a- This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. APPENDIX A-3 REFERENCE LIST Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, F1.R.4472, Title 11. Accessed at: bir IIhHUNIOL.iO\ \‘ cJ9’’t) Allen, J. (2007, May I6). Human trafficking case tied to Nashville. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from hupw.naslniIlecityppcr.com!index ,Jm ?scction id 9cc incu,s&e 56 197. Andrews, S. (2004). U.S. domestic prosecution of the American international sex tourist: Efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation. Journal of Criminal Law amid Criminology, 94(2): 415-454. Barnitz, L. (2001). Effectively responding to the commercial sexual exploitation of children: a comprehensive approach to prevention, protection, and reintegration services. (7iild We/j2ire,80(5): 597-610. Becker, G.C. (2007). Legal Options to Stop Human Trafficking. Presented by Grace Chung Becker, Deputy’Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights, May 27, 2007. Accessed at: Criminal Resource Manual 2007, Mann Act, Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http i foia ..id mus m 9fltlL cjm02027 him Declaration and Action for Agenda of the World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. (1996). Final draft submitted by the Planning and Drafting Committees of the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from v u ECPAT: Asia-Pacific Answers: Good practices in combating commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth. Accessed at: httpy\\ tpfl’vgS 1gdi soodJ2r1ccrnsLas a d I This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ECPAT: Creating a Database as A tool for Campaigning (Casa Alianza, Costa Rica). Accessed at: hnp: /uw ecpanct.m (SICpod1ticcs/inde\asp Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, The Protection Project of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. (2006). U.S. Mid-term Review on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in America. Accessed at: ma! Edwards, J.M., Iritani, B.J., and Ilallfors, D.D, (2006). Prevalence and correlates of exchanging sex for drugs or money among adolescents in the United States. Sexually Transmitted liifrctions, 82, 354-358. Ellison, M. (2003). Sexual assault. 01? Fact Sheet. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Statistical Analysis Center. Estes, R., & Weiner, N. (2001). The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of children in the U5 canada and Mexico. University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work: Philadelphia, P.A. Finkelhor, I)., Ormrod, R., Turner, II., & Hamby, S. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5—25. Fraley, A. (2005). Child sex tourism legislation under the PROTECT Act: Does it really protect? St. John ‘sLaw Review, 79: 445. Friedman, S.A. (2005). WhoIs There to Help Us? How the System Fails Sexually Exploited Girls in the United States: Examples From Four American Cities. ECPAT USA Inc. Gragg, F., Petta, I., Bernstein, H., Eisen, K., & Quinn, L. (2007). New YorkPrevalence Study oJ Commercially Sexually Exploited Children. Prepared by WESTAT for the New York Office of Children and Family Services. Green, E. (2001). Shining the light on a hidden tragedy. Chronicle ofPhilanthropv. 14(2), .9p. Green, J. M., Ennett, S. T., & Ringwalt, C. L. (1999). Prevalence and correlates of survival sex among runaway and homeless youth. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1406-1409. hosted Protecting Polaris 13-14, Operation hp OJJDP Together t Office of National (NISMART-2). Sexual Moxley-Goldsmith, 2001-2005. prostitution. Motivans, Katyal, Uncf jgp_ Interpol Children. International projcc Understanding I-lenschel, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Justice, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. 2002. by of Project News Exploitation, N.K. orpd1puhhca1kmscsec o website Incidence To Juvenile the Our Predator Accessed 2002. M. B. \\ U.S. ti Stop Accessed Office hç (1993). At The Labor (2003). and website. Children: olgpuh1I Children’s Office a on Department lie the Yale Glance, Justice Kyckelhahn, Fact Studies ie trafficking of Organization T. at: American Prostitution Men The Law Juvenile of (2005). at: Accessed Sheet. 67ap. Working Juvenile and Lish’ January/February Assessment Work. who of Journal, flX\ of Delinquency Missing 2004. Prosecutors in Boys T. Justice own Justice: at: re human pdl Accessed of Fact Together standa Justice (2006). hi Children. women: 103(3): Rctrieed in Abducted, of Sheet ,40’ and the Bureau beings. (‘SEC: c and iiild kmcc Prevention Delinquency Federal Basement: at: to Research 791-826. 2007. on A Delinquency End ien Retrieved http:/’w\.ucs February thirteenth of the A Accessed 217167/si Runaway Justice Review Child pj Retrieved Prosecutions Commercial Institute, Male Videoconference: 2((4J’ October Prevention 27, Prostitution. amendment Statistics, Of at: and Programs, 3.htrnI Victims 2007, Methodologies. May 2(1). Throwaway Sexual of 31, 5, from human (OJJDP). NCJ (1 of 2006, 2007, National critique U.S. Commercial i Exploitation Working 215248. from Department Trafficking, from Children December of Summit forced of U.S. bflLfl’ Trafficking U.S. ftn’’ Sheet Trafficking U.S. February U.S. 2007, U.S. Act U.S. 2006, Trafficking Enftrceinent Straka, ECPAT, Spangenberg, Advocate Song, Prevention dissertation, Small, identification Small, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) of Department Department Department Department Department and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Department (2006). from from 5. 2000 K., K. R. USA. (2007). 15, Program (2003). .sta1gn’gljpi1sR()o’7O12XJ in & (2007). in huj hflp:/ ac Victims Researcher. Fact 2007, Persons Washington, Bulletin, Zweig, Retrieved Persons Lith M. of of of of of of and of Global Sheet. ‘ (2001) The from State State Justice. Justice International. Justice The Health Protection .ict.hh J. response Report. in 72(2): violence iraNickm (2007). February role Child Retrieved htLpxv sL]jgpv. Office FY 1 Office Prostituted 4(2):3-5. D.C.: Project Press and (2006). 2005. of 12—16. n to Sex Act Human anti-human v to to of Sexual American Release. human w.st1c.ao\gJip. Accessed 27, trafhJinhoii. Monitor Monitor Hmong Safe Retrieved October t/pj2j)07Jantiar aboutFVPA200Opdf Tourism: Assessment of Youth 2007, sdogov/opp2O0(T’cbru\j)6jpa0X 2000 Services. victimization Childhood. i2006 trafficking (January gangs University. and and trafficking in 31, at: Fact from Children October asscssincn New 2006, Combat Combat of Sheet, and (2000). U.S. York Fact victims 31, of the from l\PA2O(0pdt 31, and community U7crtO(MThtml 2000. Government 2007). Human youth Trafficking Sheet. City: crime 2006, Trafficking Tourist of in eflo in the Retrieved An (2006). Retrieved of Trafficking. from the rts United rape. Attractions. Overview. partnerships in United Efforts Victims to Persons Retrieved The October combat States. February FBILaw States. to (2006). New Protection Youth Combat Fact in ItmI 31, Doctoral tjpnd the York, 15, The F Teleconferencing Working Victims States Commercial Van Responses. International Smuggling Trafficking The U.S. U.S. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Facts and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Bueren, Department Department Code of Together About Trafficking .stal.uo.ciiprIsfs200 of Theme In § Sexual G. Legal 7101 Migrants Persons, (2001). Child of of Website. et to paper Framework Exploitation State. State seq. Stop and Sex Especially By Child prepared Office (2001). the Accessed Violence Land, Tourism Prostitution Sexual and to of Sea, Fact Women for Monitor Children. Current I Protection Washington, at: ‘562.htm Exploitation the and Sheet: Second of Air. and National and Children Accessed Protocol Children, Act Retrieved Combat World D.C. and of Legislative (2003). 2000 the To at: Trafficking Congress and October Law: Prevent, (TVPA Protocol OJJDP A and Report against 31, Suppress, 2000), in Enforcement Juvenile Against 2006, Persons. on the 22 from the and United the Justice (2005). Punish This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Appendix A-4 International Actions Related to CSEC been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Yearfl Action CSEC Significance 1990 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the • First agreement obligating countries recognize Child (UNCRC) to the human rights of the child. Freedom from exploitation included as a basic right, Article 34 of UNCRC states that State Parties shall take all measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity: (b) The exploitive use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices: (c) The exploitive use of children in pornographic performances and materials. 1996 First World Congress Against CSEC (Stockholm, Sweden) • Hosted by ECPAT International, UNICEF, and the Swedish government. . Representatives from 122 countries and 47 youth. Adopted a denition of CSEC in the Declaration and Agenda for Action Committed to developing national plans to combat CSEC. 1997 Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children from • Code of conduct for tourism operators to protect against CSEC Sexual Exploitation in Travel and Tourism • 241 travel companies from 21 countries in Europe, Asia North and Latin America have signed the code. 2001 Second World Congress Against CSEC (Yokohama, Japan) • Follow-up to First World Congress to check progress on national plans. Out of 122 countries, 34 had developed plans and 26 were working towards developing plans. Countries encouraged to convene mid-term reviews on national plan implementation. 2000 Convention 182, Elimination of Worst Forms of , Child Labour Developed by the UN s International Labour Organization Defines CSEC as one of the worst forms of child labor 2002 United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention • Extended reach of UNCRC by providing more explicit safeguard against sexual exploitation of children on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, • Criminalized activities involving the child prostitution, sale and illegal adoption of children, the prostitution of children, and and child pornography’ child pornography With respect to t’nitcd Nations protocols. represents the ear the protocol ent into force. not the ear it as first developed. 2003 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and • Drafted by the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime Children • First time trafficking in persons defined in an international instrument and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. . Intended to hold ratifying countries accountable for changes in domestic laws, encourage international cooperation, and protection of victims Specifically focuses on women and children and defines exploitation as including “the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation” This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Appendix A-5 United States’ Actions Related to CSEC38 Year39 Title CSEC Significance 1910 Mann Act/White Slave Traffic Act • Enacted to fight against forced prostitution in keeping with Thirteenth Amendment Criminalized the transportation of minors (under 18 years of age) 1994 Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act Provision within the Crime Bill of 1994 Criminalized travel outside the U.S. with intent of engaging in sexual activity with a minor 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act • First comprehensive law to federally criminalize human trafficking (TVPA) Focus on 3 P’s — prevention, protection, and prosecution • Prevention — educational and public awareness campaigns — • Protection access to benefits and social services — housing, educational programs. job training. healthcare and legal services • Prosecution — life in prison for those who exploit children under the age of 14 and up to 20 years in prison if the victim is between 14 and 18 • No requirement to prove force, fraud or coercion if the victim is a minor (under 18 years of age) 2002 Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act • Removed intent requirement in the Child Sex Abuse Prevention Act Criminalized actions of sex tour operators 2003 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection • Created educational campaigns against sex tourism Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) • Victim able to sue trafficker in federal district court • Mandated Attorney General to produce yearly report to Congress on U.S. government efforts to combat trafficking in persons Created a Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) a cabinet-level task force to coordinate federal efforts to combat trafficking in persons Most severe incarceration penalties for child sex tourism in the world (30 years maximum incarceration) 2003 Prosecutorial and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today • Expanded territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Americans abroad who commit acts of CSEC (PROTECT) V Act V Increased maximum incarceration from 15 to 30 years ‘I his is not a comprehensive list of all I S. actions 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act Increases penalties for certain types of CSEC e.g. penalties for conduct related to child This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not prostitution were increased from 5-30 years to 10 years or life been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) L and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Appendix B B-I Prosecutor Informational Interview Guide B-2 Relevant Statutes Defining Pool of CSEC Cases in Initial Stages of Processing B-3 The Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center B-4 Research Methods for Federal Data Analysis B-5 Descriptive Tables B-6 SAS Output for Time Series Model This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. CD x w - -U -‘ 0 (1) CD C, 0 -‘ 3 I 0 CD -‘ CD C) CD This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Appendft B 1 INTENT)ED FOR UI I rtRAI. 1.SE ONLY PRoSE. tTOR 1NFOR IAt1ONL Ia’TERVJEW GUmE Rent! ni beguinw oinfrnit’: Th.kyi :or insrina to p ticif’at in our Oridv Th innnvi’rw houk1 a—i appi’xu iurlv4 o nrir- R—ioi ‘r rin I woiki blurw imurn ‘i thy the i fnnatton ou r ut—ttav on idi oni tnt at Oulu ne ib-r- I C- —ai h t-am wit 1-ur accec. to Oudv ui:ci i iti_fl i)iiI l)le fe the,e cue ti nc rc dl reoi ted nih in Lie aaci eaatr and tI.-rv dl Ilevo: ikntnv c. ii ac at: tndiv:dual Fit: :l:e:i no: econ arricipaazra ifl’Ifl ctudv -. h in-ti v Vuu ni; dc iLt ct a hdtr-t van: jaatcuIpia tan Ira ic lurct:iiv at air. tutu :vn1rcu co.w or Jen iltu Do von r tin; qu tutu Ecuc u e Backa ound Fit t. Icc oukl like ti u.k a oui Ic of qnetionc about your expeilenctu 1. }tocc do you define the conunetcial sxuaI exploitation of children and youth. (Probe to ce if aliciadefinition incindec the elements ofc!nIcl ploctitution. child porirc in aphv. child sex totnlcm. and child ccx tratlickina) Ho-ccioii hacc von been workin on involvuja CSEC and how VOni I Von cacribe :.oul tote on thtc—eca—cc? C oIlabornion :ih ilc a-’ 1 a Iec ‘c—c ‘, i. ci aC-li .,i1aOoi ite V irli i rica i_nil . WI_ntlaw entoienient en_ne—do von uurlly ccoik stied on a cae’ Who ne the core phyerc that you stock with? How cliiyou waik with tliece elltitce-’ i Pinbe to—ee the extent tii which C SEC cOSCa are cmetccited thnotixhimulti— asuisihetional interauency collboatioii such a- unit tate and local and or fedecal tru.k forces.t 3. Aide fl-un the aaencie nientioned above, ne you involved with otliec stakehollec -, iKli a- the U S Marshall Set ice, invenile p1obarian officei s. court —ocaul‘elvicew revenUedetention celiter-. cii 1 CinfliC ICtini, conipeti-ation D you a ii- with ictzn iii c-core . tc’ an a line se_nut—ic oni ot iniullrlldr’. victim caIce liii’. id_n ti\lar i the li,,tul of the reltiti.: it -hip re an. host orten do von meat, whit ihii von talk at- Vic Pi’osecuttou \ly next set cf queaehon- ask5 about how you actually handle a case I ,hr vt-a Pa rc-r This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Appendix B1 INTENDEb FOR UI INTERNAL USE ONLY o How do von deternnne wherhei a CSEC case should be tried at the state or ±ederiI lever Piobe ftt what fctoi niflttence the decision about whie to try a ease Ii for the idvantaees f tivine a caSe at the -tte tedei al lvel Aic there caes fot ‘ainch both tederal and state 5chare are btniirht aaauisr the difle defendant It so. undet what ciresuvotanee’ and boss often does tins happen S. What experience do you hase with plea-haraainrna iii a (‘SEC casey 0 Using the iit ott devout fedetal CSEC statutes piw ided (see attached sslucia statutes has e voti used for (SEC cae How do yott determine which statute is most applicable fot :00111 case 10 Aie there any aatmes that are missina horn this usCAre there any statutes oti this list that vo a think we trot ides am 101 v ‘SEC.aes 11 How oft CLI do ca e iia oh me CSEC oct pi -euted under onotliemstatute e 0 C :nspiLlc\. Rio tb rhld atauc. ktt1lappmna. etc i the lead lii ae and the SEt statute a, iii ancillary eiumae’ I What factat s e evdentiarv, procedural. ‘aitnes testimony, cotrobotative vtdence. etc 1do von think are most important in piitiinc toaether a strono C’sE( ca’e’ Diite ( ollectirn and Remi’ting h Ia last set of quest ions ask about how you tecoid and hack information on your (‘SEC It How do von collect Ii ik rnlumnimtmouon yuan (SEC cases I this infommotion automated and amin papet caSe fIlCs Would iee itchmeis hose access to 11415 inthmniatmon 14. What rvle of mntoitimationdo von tontuielv collect on (sEC ca;eo 15 Do ‘son know whethet this uiibrinatiomi pe todtcallv reviewed to help infot in office policies and piactices’ Is this inIoinratin twerl to help inform tiabmin2s 16 Do on know ‘a hetlmer tlu umfotnxmtioimis tepot ted to any stOle tedeial aae:icy’ r What do :0011 think ha leanmed firun reviewula proSecuted (‘SEC cases’ it baa Inuia ,J’oui Ph,i i This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 22 Related to 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Federal 18 18 18 18 18 18 PROCESSING RELEVANT 18 8 Appendix Review) U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. U.S.C. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. Statutes Statute § § § § § § § § § § § § § .S § § § § § § 7101 2421 2258 1592 2423 2422 2260 1590 1584 1583 1468 2253 1467 1328 2252A 2252 225 2251 1962D 1591 1466A STATUTES (Subject B-2 IA et standards Prevention and peonage, Failure Trafficking Unlawful Interstate forced Sale Enticement Distributing Criminal Importation Transportation sexual related Coercion DEFINING into Production Criminal Activity Child Sexual Selling Sexual Sex Obscene Description related the trafficking into pornography/obscenity labor activity to crimes) exploitation exploitation or U.S. related involuntary involuntary forfeiture/obscene visual or forfeiture for conduct & report buying of crimes of with into of foreign enticement obscene elimination: POOL human sexually alien of of representations slavery to child respect minor of in children (Mann material in transport of of for respect children OF trafficking: materials servitude, servitude abuse violation minors children explicit (transportation immoral to with CSEC actions Act peonage, by containing materials to of intent Violation) force, by documents depictions of or of CASES individuals protection purpose against cable exploitation sexual forced to slavery, fraud, engage child for or IN governments labor abuse of in subscription illegal or and for INITIAL pornography a furtherance involuntary coercion in minor of illegal of assistance prostitution minors sexual children for sexual failing STAGES television activity importation of servitude, for trafficking, or activity standards victims: illegal and OF or This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. methods periods. analyses applying events, applying next, in these examination the crime into case (USMS, federal ability the The Appendix the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) Agency USMS Arrest process Bureau a processing and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. they therein cases federal data single Federal across used This a a to 4fl The criminal The set set DEA. vary The provide to and is of ofstandard data that stages gathered of to FJSRC and important Federal determine uniform FJSRC significantly standardized 4 ° of providing criminal Justice all B-3 Prosecution. provides EOIJSA, CSEC contain the (arrest, justice of Justice the comprehensive builds the standards definitions database U.S. because the Justice from other system. Statistics justice cases in most a a information system. prosecuti the the AOUSC, reconciled Marshals rich while all across stages, serious way Statistics to database, Statistics as ability covers FJSRC phases and process: case different they they (BJS) all Compiling offense on, federal processing data detailed contributing USSC, define Service’s Thus, to the progress on of adjudication, has Resource and agencies the link about justice at all the following e case key filing arrest the FJSRC operated events, and Resource persons source an federal agencies’ federal database (USMS) collect suspects FJSRC through or analytic BOP) processing information conviction. Center units is of stages, similar sentencing, arrested criminal by data, by crime the of comprehensive database and reanalyzing the and Prisoner count, cohort the (FJSRC), concepts. only thus information Center The across system systems, data defendants Urban pennitting offense for justice from FJSRC existing of permits appeals, from scope Tracking the violations records six a from the Institute, classifications, on contributing reconciles project and process. valid of different criminal information six Drug source processed reporting a one agencies and comparisons different complete from System. of these sponsored case Enforcement is stage agencies’ corrections) of federal and stages unique coverage, one processing differences federal reporting in involved to about agencies and stage The the data the of law, in and by and its by of attorney court consideration. conducted federal task This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) forces defendant Act criminal adjudicated U.S. cases Adjudication (AOUSC) matters and rbefore or suspects Attorneys gender, at detention. the information regardless and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. interest, may arrest, ‘ suspect of by terminated. are magistrates. Federal In filed be the 1984, empowered addition The U.S. lack declined race, referred defendants in FBI. month characteristics, (EOUSA) also U.S. through of criminal magistrates. Hence, or criminal is by for DEA. with resources, citizenship and the to transferred attorney to U.S. provides the all to and another Data for agency ICE. investigations Sentencing detailed The make USMS, the federal disposition district sentenced matters year or prosecutton, considers data or CBP, include to U.S. USMS authori,’ arrests lack other data decline status, making of to sentence contain ATF. information arrestees of court Sentencing for the atTest, received these may agencies criminal on - (e.g., arrest referring to and pursuant ioIations and The custody and prosecute be the “criminal the judges and the information the initiated type as sentencing, Administrative such intent, criminal marital on data Secret arrest 41 . States) and most well of on variables Commission enforcement as and to for of matters” and federal in by Matters thc Service) concluded offense the for reasons as the serious arious the status. length FBI, Class proceedings prosecution. the provisions law. on USMS After for to FJSP that ICE, and such such arrestee’s detemine the different conduct, A charge are of Office The are DEA, 42 as agency, by (USSC) a database investigation misderneanants declined sentence for as referred federal weak U.S. Executive federai the ATF, of whether booking, and against of investigated. or criminal country the arresting for to the attorneys, provides insufficient and misdemeanor agency agencies contain a charges imposed. prosecution Sentencing to U.S. U.S. evcn defendants file Office and processing, of attomey history, charges state thut adjudicated Courts makes agency, evidence, birth, comprehensive data prosecution filed and by are and for for a in on primarily Reform cases local cases U.S. age, and an U.S. from U.S. minimal offense and joint arrest, district by filed of This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Appeals - The AOUSC provides data on criminal appeals tiled and terminated in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The data include information on the nature of the criminal appeal, the underlying offense, and the disposition of the appeal. • Corrections. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provides data on all offenders admitted to and released froni federal prison during the fiscal year, as well as the end of fiscal-year stock population. The data contain information such as sentence imposed, type of commitment to prison, term in effect, projected release date, sentence adjustments, and prisoner demographics. offenders arrest the 2005—and To a the by FJSRC across downloaded adjudicated the Resource detailed The Appendix Research key linking This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) measure U.S. FJSRC Urban data secondary and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. analytic all ° database to • I • attorneys, • ith federal of prior Center stages used The Institute records website 2005. Administrative commenced, and terminated, concluded, 1.’.S. Administrative annual Executi’ Executive in 2005. U.S. case the FJSRC cohort—defendants and,or U.S. the data Methods B-4 criminal assess following disposition of to Sentencing (FJSRC). Marshals from persons FJSRC frmore (for the file. examine district subsequent analysis link e different Office Office trends federal annual index annual FY1997-2005. annual case and data set arrested Service a court, Office Office the Commission of project file for information sentencing agency stages. in for for processing of criminal file. file, linking Federal is the prevalence file. publicly-available in U.S. U.S. and a Data of of (USMS),Arrests publicly-available by FY1997-2005. thus cases data federal FY1998-2005. sponsored FYI the the offenders Attorneys Attorneys federal data system justice permuting CSEC files U.S. U.S. 998-2005. data filed about (USSC). Analysis prosecution and This across Courts Courts law obtained case-defendants and system, in by characteristics feature sentenced the us (EOL (EOUSA), U.S. various nocmn,defendants enforcement, the file its to Defi.’iulants FJSRC FJSRC, Jbr build (AOUSC), (AOUSC). of special Bureau allows district SA). including: from of stages Federal unique a CSEC and more “standard Suspects Siispr’rrs for see the of “link of court sequential mrsnd Specifically. imprisoned. the of that sentenced, processing. comprehensis Appendix Federal Defendants Justice Dejendants offenses, offenders, CSEC criminal tracking index we each in in analysis number conducted criminal criminal Statistics offenses Justice ofan fiscal file” 43 o example, For annual annual B). suspects e prosecuted our in dossier in analytic identifiers file” We year, criminal criminal approach to Statistics niatler.S matters and file, file, and relies ikour link utilized of datasets investigated from cohort case we offenders operated FY1998- FY1998- that and on can cases cases opened. history we defined permits 1998 of the cohort link from by to ______ This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. to data from both prior and subsequent stages of case processing (see Figure 3.1, below). We linked our cohort to the prior stages of investigation and prosecution (EOUSA data) and arrest and booking (USMS data), as well as to the subsequent stages of adjudication (AOUSC criminal data) and sentencing (USSC data). Thus, we were able to build a richer, more detailed and comprehensive profile of case history and case characteristics for each defendant-case in the cohort, by drawing on information across all stages of federal criminal case processing. Figure 3-1 Linked-Cohort Design for Analyzing Federal CSEC Cases (Using FJSRC’S Data Linking System) Arrest and Booking Persons arrested by Federal Enforcement a by the U.S. Mars ha Service (USMS) nvestigati on Suspects in criminal matters and refe rred to U.5. attorneys I Suspects in criminal matters I concluded by U.S. attorneys 4 (EOUSA) [ Prosecution I Defendants in criminal cases filed in U.S. district court (AOUSC) Adjudication [ Defendants in criminal cases terminated in U.S. district court (AOUSC) Sentencing [ Offenders sentenced in U.S. district court, pursuant to the Federal 4 Sentencing Guidelines (USSC) and characteristics for each defendant-case in the cohort. The link index file is available to the public to download from the FJSRC website at: (http://lsrc.urban.org). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. To identify CSEC defendants in the FJSRC database that comprise our cohort, we relied on the criminal statutes of the U.S. Criminal Code (mainly those from Chapter 110 of Title 18) that pertain to CSEC crimes. The list of the specific statutes that we included (see Exhibit 3.1) was informed by several interviews that we conducted with federal prosecutors who routinely work on and prosecute CSEC cases for the U.S. Department of 44Justice It was also informed by feedback obtained from our research partner, Polaris Project, whose staff are in the field working together with victims and prosecutors of CSEC. cases on a daily basis. Federal criminal statutes associated with each of up to five filing charges per defendant were available in the AOUSC criminal data for our key analytic cohort: defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court. To define the appropriate universe of cases to include in this cohort, we developed an algorithm that searched through all 5 filing charges for the federal statutes related to CSEC listed in Exhibit 3.1. If any of the five charges were one of these CSEC statutes, we considered the case a “CSEC case” and included it in our cohort. By utilizing the FJSRC data to build our analytic cohort in the manner described here, we were able to learn important case processing information pertaining to CSEC cases, such as: • How the criminal matter was brought to the attention of the prosecutor (i.e., which law enforcement agency investigated and referred the matter to the U.S. attorney); • Whether and why a matter was declined for federal prosecution by the U.S. attorney; • Whether it was transferred to and prosecuted by other authorities (such as the states); • What other types of crimes were associated with these cases; and • The “offense of arrest” to find out what was designated as the most serious offense at the time of arrest. We interviewed an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the District of Columbia, to prosecutors froni the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the DOJ Criminal Division, and a prosecutor from DOJ’s Civil Rights Division all of whom have experience prosecuting CSEC offenders at the Federal level. (conviction predictive multivariate federal In offenses: of considerably organize offender processing well Since We these to drawing and from USSC sentence outcomes moves In other commercial the The addition This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not the Federal been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) addition, limited organized mitigating classification as and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. that and criminal CSEC final sentencing initiatives • • forward, defendant Discussions on characteristics, and (prison, many dataset analyses. such statutes Child Child U.S.C. U.S.C. Sexual to (including sentence or information information predictive our sexual covers on display the not) descriptive behaviors factors) as other “linked-cohort” many the prostitutionlsex pornography descriptive in (e.g., probation, demographics held case data § exploitation § of associated and exploitation order several elements 2260); 1591) First, received information offense at factors arrest, aspects, models we sentence disposition passage and the that gleaned we are to statistics project’s we were offender-based different developed was understand fine) analyses, detected, investigation, at associated with of by conducted (18 to including of of arrest able of length commercial approach such from the known trafficking analyze Practitioner in children and the U.S.C. each (conviction children in the offender. to types as a is TVPA) sentence all but we a imposed, analyze set descriptive type. the sometimes with about race, typology a offense stages the § also as allowed time (18 Meeting or of prosecution, characteristics 2252; kinds cases (18 sexual more key defendants consists “groupings” detailed gender, on U.S.C. the or conducted We length. series the of’ U.S.C. for seriousness, CSEC helped case not), progress, of of 18 case the facts us computed tables. rich a exploitation those offense CSEC U.S.C. crime to analysis § of age, tables outcomes federal to and at By 2251; § prosecutions. sentencing adjudication, are look refine charged the 2422; the a (e.g., who of citizenship, linking for This it other variety offenses 4 revealed behaviors following § that offenses time, forward is descriptive the associated justice 18 2252A) those to were possible criminal 18 typology, definition arc of cover assess U.S.C. with than our U.S.C. of information case Due discovered. convicted, convicted. as system. and multivariate and that that CSEC a We cohort three and (e.g., all the the of CSEC disposition to that penalties, § history) statistics sentencing), this analyze with 2251A; vary stages § we constnicted the marital investigation impact 2423; CSEC aggravating initially because typology. to used way of type groupings available the We of tense, that on case 18 and 18 status. of to case of only led of as This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. used logistic regression modeling, with case disposition as the dependent variable, to examine the characteristics4 related to conviction (guilty pleas, as well as trial outcomes), and we used Ordinary’ Least Squares (OLS) regression to build multivariate models predicting sentence length. Case characteristics and mode of case disposition (plea vs. trial) were used as independent variables in models examining sentence length. We considered many other factors related to the case, such as the type of defense counsel (private or court-appointed), and the presence of other co-defendants in the case, in order to assess their impact on the sentence an offender received. 46 Logistic regression models are used when dependent variables arc binaiy or categorical in nature. In this instance, the binary outcome measure is conviction or no conviction. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not CD V been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (I) V and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. C:: CD x CD 0 CD U) This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 1: Suspects in criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S. attorneys, 1998-2005 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (with a CSEC offense as the lead charge) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total#suspects 742 888 1,068 1,177 1,233 1,462 1,684 1,748 Lead charge determined by U.S. attorney: Sexual exploitation of children 102 83 107 118 118 145 152 130 18USC2251 95 71 86 94 94 115 126 113 18USC2251A 7 12 21 24 24 30 26 17 Child pornographyoffenses 526 618 714 805 858 1,059 1,262 1,307 18USC2252 382 431 437 458 488 611 799 794 18 usc § 2252A 144 187 277 347 370 448 463 513 Child prostitution/sex trafficking 111 186 243 250 255 254 265 306 18U5C2422 21 48 84 128 134 116 100 159 18USC2423 90 138 159 122 121 136 147 134 iuscisgi 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 13 Criminal forfeiture (exploiting minors) 18USC2253 1 1 2 4 2 2 4 3 Recordkeeping offenses (sex materials) 18 usc § 2257 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource center, EOUSA LIONS database, annual, 1998-2005 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 2: Suspects in CSEC criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S. attorneys, 1998-2005 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. (Disposition of the criminal matter) FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 OVERALL Total# suspects 742 888 1068 1,177 1,233 1,462 1,684 1,748 10,002 Disposition of the criminal matter: Declined for Federal prosecution 54% 48% 54% 63% 64% 58% 66% 51% 58% Disposed by U.S. magistrates 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4% 5% 3% Filed as a criminal case in 42% 50% 44% 36% 33% 41% 30% 44% 39% U.S. district court Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Executive Office for USAttorneys LIONS database, annual, 1998-2005 Table 2a: Suspects in Child Pornography criminal matters investigated This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not & concluded by U.S. attorneys, 1998-2005 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Disposition of the criminal matter) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 OVERALL Total#suspects 526 618 714 805 858 1,059 1,262 1,307 7,149 Disposition of the criminal matter: Declined for Federal prosecution 53% 47% 54% 61% 64% 60% 69% 53% 59% Disposed by U.S. magistrates 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% Filed as a criminal case in 44% 50% 44% 38% 34% 39% 28% 43% 39% U.S. district court Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Executive Office for U.S.Attorneys LIONS database, annual, 1998-2005 Table 2b: Suspects in Child Prostitution criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S. attorneys, 1998-2005 (Disposition of the criminal matter) FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY200I FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 OVERALL Total # suspects 111 186 243 250 255 254 265 306 1,870 Disposition of the criminal matter: Declined for Federal prosecution 50% 50% 48% 67% 62% 50% 52% 40% 52% Disposed by U.S. magistrates 5% 3% 3% 1% 4% 2% 9% 7% 4% Filed as a criminal case in 44% 47% 49% 32% 34% 48% 39% 53% 43% U.S. district court Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Executive Office for U.S.Attorneys’ LIONS database, annual, 1998-2005 Table 2c: Suspects in Child Sex Exploitation criminal matters This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not investigated & concluded by U.S. attorneys,1998-2005 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Disposition of the criminal matter) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 OVERALL Total#suspects 102 83 107 118 118 146 152 130 956 Disposition of the criminal matter: Declined for Federal prosecution 64% 61% 51% 68% 72% 57% 67% 54% 62% Disposed by U.S. magistrates 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 5% 4% 3% Filed as a criminal case in 34% 38% 47% 29% 26% 41% 28% 42% 35% U.S. district court Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Executive Office for U.S.Attorneys LIONS database, annual, 1998-2005 Table 3: Suspects in CSEC criminal matters declined for prosecution by US attorneys, 1998-2005 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Basis for declination) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total # declinations 401 422 571 734 782 835 1,094 872 Basis for declination of prosecution: No crime 83 77 131 167 177 175 288 234 No federal offense evident 29 33 46 47 37 49 119 71 Lack of evIdence of criminal intent 54 44 85 120 140 126 169 163 Handled in other prosecution 124 121 148 190 167 182 215 182 Re moved 12 7 7 14 17 12 22 11 Prosecuted on other charges 12 10 13 14 10 7 25 12 Prosecuted by other authorities 100 104 128 162 140 163 168 159 Alternative resolution 13 11 10 10 7 14 9 10 Civil or adminstrative alternative 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 Pretrial diversion 11 9 9 7 4 12 8 9 Supsect-related reasons 20 13 23 34 38 37 32 25 Suspect serving sentence 0 3 3 2 7 14 1 1 No known suspect 11 5 10 19 21 15 12 15 Suspect deceased 9 5 10 13 10 7 19 9 Suspect deported 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Case-related reasons 95 140 126 183 235 247 313 223 Stale case 0 4 5 8 15 12 7 11 Weak or insufficient evidence 78 119 112 167 207 223 271 184 Statute of limitations exceeded 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Jurisdictional or venue problems 12 11 6 5 8 4 31 21 Witness problems 3 6 3 2 4 7 3 6 All other reasons 64 60 127 136 152 168 219 190 1InImal federal interest 12 10 18 31 10 28 22 18 Petite Policy 3 2 8 7 6 6 5 5 Lack of resources 11 7 13 21 28 43 45 30 DOJ policy 2 3 2 3 4 1 9 1 U.S. attorney policy 6 14 28 10 23 9 12 26 Agency request 16 14 46 56 67 67 97 93 Juvenile suspect 5 3 7 3 8 10 21 12 Offender’s health, age, prior record, or 6 6 5 5 5 2 7 5 other personal circumstances Suspect’s cooperation 3 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 Unknown 2 0 6 14 6 12 18 8 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource center Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys LIONS database annual. 1998-2005 Table 3a: Suspects in Child Pornography criminal matters declined for prosecution by US. attorneys, 1998-2005 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Basis for declination> and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total # declinations 277 290 382 485 543 626 858 683 Basis for declination of prosecution: No crime 53 45 92 116 129 127 244 185 No federal offense evident 19 17 28 31 28 32 98 60 Lack of evidence of criminal intent 34 28 64 85 101 95 146 125 Handled in other prosecution 76 76 83 112 118 124 141 134 Removed 5 5 6 6 9 7 11 7 Prosecuted on other charges 6 7 7 9 5 6 17 8 Prosecuted by other authorities 65 64 70 97 104 111 113 119 Alternative resolution 9 10 10 10 7 10 7 10 Civil or adminstrative alternative 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 Pretrial diversion 8 9 9 7 4 9 6 9 Supsect-related reasons 12 12 21 29 21 24 26 21 Suspect serving sentence 0 3 3 1 6 13 1 1 No known suspect 6 4 9 16 6 6 9 13 Suspect deceased 6 5 9 12 9 4 16 7 Suspect deported 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Case-related reasons 75 101 86 113 166 197 241 178 Stale case 0 4 5 7 12 11 5 8 Weak or insufficient evidence 62 89 78 105 147 179 208 149 Statute of limitations exceeded 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Jurisdictional or venue problems 11 7 3 1 5 4 26 19 Witness problems 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 All other reasons 51 46 88 95 99 136 184 147 Minimal federal interest 10 8 14 22 7 19 22 15 Petite Policy 1 1 3 5 3 3 4 2 Lack of resources 9 6 10 17 20 37 32 23 DOJ policy 2 2 1 2 1 1 6 0 U.S. attorney policy 5 9 14 7 12 8 11 20 Agency request 13 10 34 35 47 56 84 70 Juvenile suspect 4 3 7 3 6 9 20 12 Offenders health, age, prior record, or 4 6 5 4 3 1 5 5 other personal circumstances Suspects cooperation 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Unknown 1 0 2 10 3 8 15 8 Data Source Federal Justice Statalics Resource Center, Executive Office for US. Attorneys LIONS database, annual, 1998-2005 Table 3b: Suspects in Child Prostitution criminal matters This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, 1998-2005 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Basis for declination> and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FYi 999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total# declinations 56 81 116 167 157 125 134 119 Basis for declination of prosecution: No crime 11 12 22 33 37 32 28 33 No federal offense evident 5 7 11 12 6 12 15 7 Lack of evidence of criminal intent 6 5 11 21 31 20 13 26 Handled in other prosecution 30 28 38 53 29 29 43 30 Removed 7 1 1 8 4 4 11 4 Prosecuted on other charges 3 1 4 2 2 0 2 2 Prosecuted by other authorities 20 26 33 43 23 25 30 24 Alternative resolution 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Supsect-related reasons 0 1 0 3 16 7 5 2 Suspect serving sentence 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 No known suspect 0 1 0 3 15 6 2 2 Suspect deceased 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Suspect deported 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Case-related reasons 9 31 24 49 47 28 40 28 Stale case 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Weak or insufficient evidence 7 23 19 44 40 25 37 21 Statute of limitations exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jurisdictional or venue problems 1 3 2 3 3 0 0 1 Witness problems 1 5 3 2 3 3 2 4 All other reasons 5 9 29 27 27 22 16 26 Minimal federal interest 1 2 1 6 2 4 0 1 Petite Policy 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 0 Lack of resources 1 0 2 3 6 4 9 6 DOJ policy 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 U.S. attorney policy 1 5 13 1 8 1 0 2 Agency request 1 1 9 13 8 9 6 17 Juvenile suspect 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Offender’s health, age, prior record, 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 other personal circumstances Suspect’s cooperation 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Unknown 1 0 3 2 1 4 2 0 Data Source: Federal Justce Statistcs Resource Center Executve Office for U.S. Attorneys’ LIONS database annual, 1998-2005 Table 3c: Suspects in Child Sex Exploitation criminal matters declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, 1998-2005 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Basis for declination) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total # declinations 65 50 70 79 82 81 99 68 Basis for declination of prosecution: No crime 18 19 16 17 11 16 16 16 No federal offense evident 5 9 7 4 3 5 6 4 Lack of evidence of criminal intent 13 10 9 13 8 11 10 12 Handled in other prosecution 18 17 27 25 20 27 29 18 Removed 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 Prosecuted on other charges 3 2 2 3 3 1 5 2 Prosecuted by other authorities 15 14 25 22 13 25 24 16 Alternative resolution 4 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 Civil or adminstrative alternative 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Pretrial diversion 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Supsect-relatod reasons 7 0 1 2 1 6 1 2 Suspect serving sentence 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 No known suspect 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Suspect deceased 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 2 Suspect deported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Case-related reasons 10 8 15 21 22 21 31 15 Stale case 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 Weak or insufficient evidence 8 7 14 18 20 18 25 13 Statute of limitations exceeded 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Jurisdictional or venue problems 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 1 Witness problems 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 AU other reasons 8 5 10 13 26 10 19 17 Minimal federal interest 1 0 3 3 1 5 0 2 Petite Policy 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 Lack of resources 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 1 DOJ policy 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 U.S. attorney policy 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 4 Agency request 2 3 3 8 12 2 7 6 Juvenile suspect 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Offenders health, age, prior record, 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 other personal circumstances Suspects cooperation 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Unknown 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys LIONS database. annual, 1998-2005 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 4: Defendants in cases tiled in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge, 1998-2005 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (most serious filing charge) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Total # defendants 427 580 667 759 930 1,013 1,320 1,512 CSEC offense (charge at case filing) Sexual exploitation of children 28 54 77 95 144 138 163 155 18 usc § 2251 26 50 65 77 111 108 136 125 18 usc § 2251A 2 4 12 18 33 30 27 30 Child pornography offenses 363 427 465 515 604 685 927 1,094 18 usc § 2252 363 389 250 199 228 246 291 324 18 usc § 2252A 0 38 215 316 376 438 636 770 18 usc § 2260 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Child prostitution I sex trafficking 35 98 125 148 178 187 228 260 18 usc § 2422 12 23 28 53 63 67 74 93 is usc § 2423 23 75 97 95 112 109 134 140 18 usc § 1591 3 11 20 27 Criminal forfeiture (exploit minors) 18 usc § 2253 0 0 0 1 4 3 2 3 Recordkeeping offenses (sex materials) 18 usc § 2257 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ criminal master file, annual, 1998-2005 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 5: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Information at arrest) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total# defendants 329 443 422 529 618 547 746 Arresting Agency FBI 96 170 171 219 246 195 307 U.S. Marshals Service 73 82 97 120 116 122 158 U.S. Customs 55 64 26 35 49 40 72 U.S. Postal Service 16 20 29 21 41 35 33 Self Commitment* 69 82 78 99 120 113 108 Offense at Arrest Alien Smuggling 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 Assault 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 Commercial sex 19 15 11 11 6 7 12 Drug trafficking 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Fraud 7 5 4 3 5 3 2 Immigration 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 Kidnapping 5 2 2 5 0 2 3 Money laundering 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Neglect 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 Obscene materials 161 203 205 282 307 292 375 Prostitution 1 8 10 5 1 1 6 13 SexAssault 8 5 9 11 11 2 12 Sex Offense 94 149 127 174 223 202 304 Weapon offense 2 0 1 0 2 2 2 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004, linked with US Marshals’ arrest file, annual, 1998-2005. via FJSRC’s link index file. * According to the U.S. Marshals Service, “Self Commitment’ indicates that the person either: 1) voluntarily turned himself in to authorities: or 2) had an outstanding warrant pending, for which he surrendered himself to authorities. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 6: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for any CSEC charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FYi 998 FYi 999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total#defendants 329 443 422 529 618 547 746 Gender of defendant Female 4 6 6 9 12 8 12 Male 325 437 416 520 606 539 734 Race of defendant White 314 405 389 490 573 524 721 Black 12 18 28 23 29 12 15 Asian/Pacific Islander 3 15 4 10 12 6 7 Native American 0 3 0 3 1 3 2 Unknown/Other 0 2 1 3 3 2 1 Age of defendant (at arrest) Mean (years) 40 40 40 39 39 41 41 Median (years) 39 39 39 38 39 40 41 Citizenship of defendant US. citizen 295 387 384 475 549 510 699 Not U.S. citizen 15 13 8 23 22 10 15 Missing/Unknown 19 43 30 31 47 27 32 Marital status of defendant Single 140 194 188 209 268 241 335 Married 83 131 118 174 197 165 214 Divorced 39 58 57 70 77 73 118 Widowed 0 1 3 1 2 2 3 Missing/Unknown 67 58 54 75 72 65 76 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004, linked with US Marshals’ arrest file, annual, 1998-2005. via FJSRC’s link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 6a: Defendants in cases filed in US. district court for a Child Pornography charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total#defendants 243 317 294 346 375 374 522 Gender of defendant Female 1 0 2 2 2 4 5 Male 242 317 292 344 373 370 517 Race of defendant White 237 306 282 328 357 364 514 Black 4 6 9 10 8 4 4 Asian/Pacific Islander 2 2 2 3 7 2 2 Native American 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 Unknown/Other 0 2 1 3 3 2 1 Age of defendant (at arrest) Mean (years) 40 41 40 40 39 41 42 Median (years) 39 40 39 39 38 40 42 Citizenship of defendant U.S. citizen 225 285 271 316 339 349 492 NotU.S.citizen 6 8 5 12 7 3 7 Missing/Unknown 12 24 18 18 29 22 23 Marital status of defendant Single 114 142 130 136 163 172 236 Married 59 93 85 114 126 114 159 Divorced 26 45 38 47 43 47 78 Widowed 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 Missing/Unknown 44 35 38 48 40 39 47 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file. annual. 1998-2004, linked with US Marshals arrest file, annual, 1998-2005, via FJSRC’s link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 6b: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY200I FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total#defendants 46 62 57 110 118 84 113 Gender of defendant Female 2 3 2 3 0 2 3 Male 44 59 55 107 118 82 110 Race of defendant White 38 52 47 95 104 76 101 Black 7 7 9 11 11 5 7 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 2 1 4 3 3 5 Native American 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 UnknownlOther 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Age of defendant (at arrest) Mean (years) 38 38 38 38 38 39 40 Median (years) 37 36 36 37 39 40 39 Citizenship of defendant U.S. citizen 39 50 49 91 97 77 101 Not U.S. citizen 5 3 1 10 10 3 5 Missing/Unknown 2 9 7 9 11 4 7 Marital status of defendant Single 14 21 27 45 60 37 47 Married 10 20 17 36 32 24 37 Divorced 10 6 5 12 13 13 16 Widowed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Missing/Unknown 12 15 7 17 12 9 12 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004, linked with US Marshals arrest file, annual. 1998-2005. via FJSRC’s link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 6c: Defendants in cases filed in US. district court for a Child Sex Exploitation charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # defendants 20 41 50 59 89 49 63 Gender of defendant Female 1 2 2 4 4 1 2 Male 19 39 48 55 85 48 61 Race of defendant White 20 38 48 55 79 46 62 Black 0 2 1 1 8 1 1 Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 Native American 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Unknown/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Age of defendant (at arrest) Mean (years) 37 40 39 39 40 40 39 Median (years) 36 39 39 38 39 41 39 Citizenship of defendant U.S. citizen 17 39 46 55 80 49 61 Not U.S. citizen 0 1 2 1 5 0 1 Missing/Unknown 3 1 2 3 4 0 1 Marital status of defendant Single 6 17 21 22 26 18 24 Married 5 10 11 18 30 11 8 Divorced 3 7 11 9 16 11 17 Widowed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Missing/Unknown 6 7 6 10 17 8 14 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file. annual, 1998-2004, linked with US Marshals arrest file, annual. 1998-2005, via FJSRCs link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 7: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FYi 998 FYi 999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # defendants 367 493 567 654 770 835 1007 Prior Criminal History No 155 236 245 308 384 406 476 Yes 206 251 317 341 380 417 523 Missing 6 6 5 5 6 12 8 Number of Dependants 0 239 293 354 395 485 539 592 1 52 71 70 109 123 131 151 2 31 46 64 58 81 80 101 3 21 33 46 47 40 40 75 4 7 11 11 17 23 10 30 5ormore 2 5 6 12 7 7 15 Missing 15 34 16 16 11 28 43 Education Less than H.S. Graduate 25 39 58 57 79 73 83 High School Graduate 130 174 197 258 290 320 407 Some College 108 144 177 161 217 241 307 Colleae Graduate 92 122 124 157 171 183 188 Missing/Unknown 12 14 11 21 13 18 22 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 linked with U.S. Sentencing Commission data, annual, 1998-2005, via FJSRCs link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 7a: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Pornography charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FYi 998 FYi 999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # defendants 277 352 372 425 472 544 682 Prior Criminal History No 126 182 172 215 262 283 354 Yes 146 167 196 207 206 253 324 Missing 5 3 4 3 4 8 4 Number of Dependants 0 177 208 244 264 303 359 414 1 43 51 40 74 78 82 101 2 22 32 39 36 47 52 65 3 14 27 29 28 25 26 45 4 7 7 5 5 10 6 15 5ormore 2 3 3 8 2 1 10 Missing 12 24 12 10 7 18 32 Education Less than H.S. Graduate 11 24 28 30 44 41 49 High School Graduate 100 133 129 184 183 212 268 Some College 82 109 124 98 134 166 213 College Graduate 77 80 82 102 103 112 139 Missinq/Unknown 7 6 9 11 8 13 13 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 linked with U.S. Sentencing Commission data, annual, 1998-2005, via FJSRC’s link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 7b: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # defendants 48 71 96 123 143 138 162 Prior Criminal History No 18 29 47 61 73 74 76 Yes 29 41 48 60 70 62 84 Missing 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 Number of Dependants 0 34 45 48 68 84 84 82 1 5 8 18 17 26 26 21 2 3 8 15 14 17 11 22 3 6 2 8 13 5 5 18 4 0 2 3 4 7 4 9 5ormore 0 1 1 3 3 2 4 Missing 0 5 3 4 1 6 6 Education Less than H.S. Graduate 8 5 15 9 17 10 12 High School Graduate 15 19 27 33 46 45 67 Some College 13 20 27 38 35 34 49 College Graduate 10 24 25 35 44 46 29 Missing/Unknown 2 3 2 8 1 3 5 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center. AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 linked with U.S. Sentencing Commission data, annual, 1998-2005, via FJSRC’s link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 7c: Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Sexual Exploitation charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) (Demographics) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FYI 998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # defendants 22 45 67 83 110 100 98 Prior Criminal History No 7 15 21 27 32 27 22 Yes 15 30 46 56 76 72 75 Missing 0 0 0 0 2 1 Number of Dependants 0 14 26 45 50 66 63 57 1 1 9 7 13 13 12 16 2 4 2 8 6 14 10 10 3 1 2 4 4 8 8 7 4 0 1 1 7 4 0 4 5ormore 0 1 1 I 2 4 1 Missing 2 4 1 2 3 3 3 Education Lessthan HS. Graduate 3 3 3 11 13 17 13 High School Graduate 7 13 29 31 45 40 49 Some College 7 13 21 21 33 25 26 College Graduate 4 14 14 19 15 17 8 Missing/Unknown 1 2 0 1 4 1 2 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 linked with US. Sentencing Commission data, annual, 1998-2005, via FJSRCs link index file. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 8: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY200I FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total#Defendants 450 585 656 748 912 977 1,156 Type of Counsel Court-appointed 43 43 69 45 70 73 95 Public Defender 80 96 115 157 210 255 277 Private attorney 131 138 164 166 224 217 245 Waived/self-representation 1 1 3 2 2 8 6 Type of Counsel not reported 195 307 305 378 406 424 533 Case Disposition Convicted Guilty plea 396 502 559 679 784 853 1,053 Trial* By 19 32 44 23 46 42 33 NoContest 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 Not Convicted Dismissal 27 46 34 37 64 59 49 (Trial*) Acquittal 4 0 3 1 2 7 4 Dismissed statistically 4 5 13 8 16 14 17 Type of Sentence** Prison 354 477 543 614 748 840 1,026 Probation 53 44 57 71 60 36 32 Split 6 11 2 7 12 11 17 FineOnly 0 0 1 1 2 0 6 Suspended 2 2 1 4 6 4 3 Unknown 4 5 15 13 18 20 19 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 * Bench or jury trial; ** Many sentences include fines; combinations are not explicitly listed in this table This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 8a: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Pornography charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # Defendants 337 410 435 492 556 624 780 Type of Counsel Court-appointed 25 28 30 22 34 38 48 Public Defender 53 57 67 89 100 135 159 Private attorney 113 109 114 105 150 161 174 Waived/self-representation 1 0 1 2 1 3 5 Type of Counsel not reported 145 216 223 274 271 287 394 Case Disposition Convicted Guilty plea 301 366 377 448 491 564 727 ByTrial* 13 16 21 10 11 17 13 No Contest 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 Not Convicted Dismissal 19 26 25 26 44 36 29 (Trial*) Acquittal 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 Dismissed statistically 2 2 7 8 10 5 9 Type of Sentence** Prison 261 334 353 400 437 538 696 Probation 46 38 43 47 52 28 25 Split 4 10 2 4 9 3 13 Fine Only 6 10 2 5 9 10 13 Suspended 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 Unknown 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 * Bench or jury trial; ** Many sentences include fines; combinations are not explicitly listed in this table This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 8b: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total# Defendants 67 87 110 141 174 164 191 Type of Counsel Court-appointed 13 6 20 8 16 16 22 Public Defender 20 21 26 43 69 73 66 Private attorney 6 15 28 39 37 29 46 Waivedlself-representation 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Type of Counsel not reported 28 45 36 51 51 44 57 Case Disposition Convicted Guilty plea 56 71 91 124 138 133 159 ByTrial* 3 5 11 8 21 15 15 No Contest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not Convicted Dismissal 5 9 4 8 10 9 12 Acquittal (Trial*) 1 0 0 1 2 5 1 Dismissed statistically 2 2 4 0 3 2 4 Type of Sentence** Prison 53 72 91 112 144 144 162 Probation 5 2 11 18 6 2 5 Split 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 FineOnly 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 Suspended 1 2 0 2 4 1 0 Unknown 2 2 4 0 4 3 4 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 * Bench ** or jury trial: Many sentences include fines; combinations are not explicitly listed in this table This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 8c: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Sexual Exploitation charge, 1998-2004 been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FYI 998 FYi 999 FY2000 FY200I FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total#Defendants 24 50 76 89 127 120 115 Type of Counsel Court-appointed 3 8 5 7 18 14 16 Public Defender 4 11 17 16 28 30 33 Private attorney 3 10 17 21 24 13 12 Waivedlself-representation 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 Type of Counsel not reported 14 20 36 45 57 60 53 Case Disposition Convicted Guilty plea 20 42 64 82 108 103 103 ByTrial* 2 7 5 5 11 6 3 No Contest 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Not Convicted Dismissal 2 1 4 2 6 6 7 Acquittal (Trial*) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dismissed statistically 0 0 2 0 2 4 2 Type of Sentence** Prison 20 47 67 81 119 109 105 Probation 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 Split 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 FineOnly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suspended 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 2 1 2 4 2 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 * ** Bench or jury trial; Many sentences include fines; combinations are not explicitly listed in this table This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 9: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for CSEC charge, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 19982OO4* : avg processing time and sentence imposed and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total # Defendants 450 585 656 748 912 977 1,156 Processing Time (case filing to disposition) Mean (days) 277 287 279 274 318 282 260 Median (days) 212.5 219 210.5 210.5 251.5 230 230.5 Prison Sentence Imposed N 360 487 543 620 760 851 1040 Mean (months) 50 53 58 55 69 67 80 Median (months) 30 30 30 33 41 41 60 Probation Sentence Imposed N 59 55 59 78 72 46 49 Mean (months) 49 45 49 46 47 50 48 Median (months) 60 36 60 36 48 60 60 Fine Imposed N 156 179 179 166 202 204 209 Mean ($) $ 3,795 $ 5,142 $ 46,653 $ 4,234 $ 3,938 $ 6,237 $ 4,907 Median ($) $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,900 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource center, AOUS criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 9a: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for Child Pornography charge, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 19982OO4* : avg processing time and sentence imposed and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total# Defendants 337 410 435 492 556 624 780 Processing Time (case filing to disposition) Mean (days) 273 287 270 266 298 273 254 Median (days) 211 209 210 201.5 235.5 224 228 Prison Sentence Imposed N 267 344 354 405 446 548 709 Mean (months) 40 45 43 42 48 48 63 Median (months) 27 30 30 31 33 33 48 Probation Sentence Imposed N 52 48 45 52 61 38 38 Mean (months) 48 45 50 46 47 52 49 Median (months) 60 36 60 36 48 60 60 Fine Imposed N 124 131 113 112 136 143 147 Mean ($) $ 3,929 $ 3,554 $ 70,084 $ 4,329 $ 4,621 $ 4,183 $ 5,555 Median ($) $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 9b: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for Child Prostitution charge, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) 19982OO4* : avg processing time and sentence imposed and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. FYi 998 FYi 999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total# Defendants 67 87 110 141 174 164 191 Processing Time (case filing to disposition) Mean (days) 294 265 293 274 322 274 247 Median (days) 204 224 193 212 266 239 221 Prison Sentence Imposed N 53 72 91 111 147 144 164 Mean (months) 48 35 41 35 64 65 74 Median (months) 30 20.5 21 30 37 46 60 Probation Sentence Imposed N 5 2 11 18 9 1 8 Mean (months) 55 48 45 51 56 60 46 Median (months) 60 48 48 60 57 60 42 Fine Imposed N 14 27 33 40 36 32 36 Mean($) $ 3,045 $ 14,866 $ 2,917 $ 3,768 $ 2,223 $ 18,238 $ 3,665 Median ($) $ 1,750 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 1.250 $ 2,000 $ 1,750 Data Source; Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not Table 9c: Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for Child Sexual Exploitation charge, been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. 19982OO4* : avg processing time and sentence imposed FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 Total# Defendants 24 50 76 89 127 120 115 Processing Time (case filing to disposition) Mean (days) 262 333 318 309 404 337 304 Median (days) 251 298 232 265 341 271 278 Prison Sentence Imposed N 20 47 67 83 119 110 105 Mean (months) 138 134 132 137 160 159 187 Median (months) 127.5 120 120 120 121 130 168 Probation Sentence Imposed N 2 2 1 4 0 1 1 Mean (months) 60 48 60 45 36 36 Median (months) 60 48 60 48 . 36 36 Fine Imposed N 8 14 21 12 17 17 15 Mean ($) $ 4,089 $ 1,923 $ 8,480 $ 4,938 $ 3,227 $ 1,637 $ 4,101 Median ($) $ 5,000 $ 1,900 $ 2,500 $ 3,750 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 Data Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, AOUSC criminal master file, annual, 1998-2004 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. inter Inter dl d3 lagfiled Month Variable The intercept Coeff Appendix SAS Root Corrected Dependent Error Model Source Number Number Number Dependent Model: This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those author(s) REG and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of U.S. Department Justice. MSE TVP PRO Var Output MODEL of of of Procedure Total intercept Mean Label Observations Observations Observations Variable: B-6 I Analysis for Number Parameter Time 94 DF 88 with Read Used 6 79.11579 18.97175 15.00965 of DF 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Variance of Missing observations, Series -47.50900 24.74803 Estimates Parameter -5.06192 -0.13506 Estimate Sum Squares 111348 0.70153 1.02490 0.13806 91522 19825 Values of Model Adj R-Square 225.28954 N 26.81485 R-Sq 13.10664 Square Standard 0.38653 0.10719 Mean 0.44263 0.39555 6.90790 Error 61 15254 cd 95 96 0.8219 0.8098 -1.77 -0.39 -0.31 t 1.81 F 2.59 3.58 1.29 Value Value 67.71 0.0729 0.2011 0.7003 0.0006 0.0799 0.0112 0.7610 Pr—’ <.0001 Pr> F