An Analysis Of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since The .
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 CSECCases since the Passage of the Victims ofTrafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000Author(s):Kevonne Small; William Adams; Colleen Owens;Kevin RolandDocument No.:222023Date Received:March 2008Award Number:2006-JP-FX-K058This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition totraditional paper copies.Opinions or points of view expressed are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflectthe 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 notbeen 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.IAn Analysis of FederallyProsecuted CSEC Casessince the Passage of theVictims of Trafficking andViolence Protection Act of2000Final ReportKevonne Small, JD., Ph.D.William Adams, MP.P.Colleen OwensKevin RolandI’URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.WAn Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000INSTITUTEJusticeURBAN Policy Center21D0 M Street NWWashington, DC 2lJD37wwwurban org 2008 Urban InstituteThis report was prepared under cooperative agreement number 2006-JP-FX-K058 withthe Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the UrbanInstitute, its trustees, or its funders.AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to acknowledge many individuals for their contributions to thisresearch.First, we are indebted to our research partners at Polaris Project who provided us withinvaluable expertise and assistance throughout this study:Katherine Chon. President/Executive Director, Polaris ProjectBradley Miles, Deputy Director, Polaris ProjectTina Frundt, Street Outreach Coordinator. Polaris ProjectSecond, we would like to express our appreciation to the federal prosecutors whogenerously granted us an informational interview for this study. The information obtainedin these interviews provided a framework for the analyses of federal CSEC case datacontained in this report.Third, we are grateful to the CSEC service providers and advocates from the greaterWashington. D.C., area who graciously participated in a focus group meeting for thisstudy. The insights gained in this meeting from individuals who are on the front lineshelping CSEC victims everyday were vital to this research.Finally, we would like to acknowledge Dr. TeiTence Dunworth, Director of the JusticePolicy Center at the Urban Institute, and Dr. Janinc Zweig, Senior Advisor for this studyat the Urban Institute. Dr. Dunworth and Dr. Zwcig provided general oversight andguidance to the Urban Institute project team for this study, as well as a critical review ofreport manuscripts.The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Uenter
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.BAn Ana1yss of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.mAn Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000CONTENTSCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONICHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE2.1United States Actions to Combat CSEC2.2Highlights of Comprehensive Literature Review3310CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL CSEC CASE DATA3.1Prosecutor Interviews3.2Research Methods3.3Descriptive Analyses3.4Predictive Models of Case Outcomes3.4Summary of Findings121216184456CHAPTER 4: PRACTITIONER MEETING4.1Key Findings4.2Practitioners Suggestions for Future Research606066CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS5.1Research Questions5.2Implications for Policy, Practice and Research696971The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.WAn Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victimsof lraftickmg and Violence Protection Act of 2000List of Exhibits and FiguresExhibitsExhibit 3-1Federal Statutes Pertaining to the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and YouthExhibit 3-2Logistic Regression Model Predicting Conviction of CSFC DefendantsExhibit 3-3OLS Regression Model Predicting Prison Sentence Length Imposed on CSECDefendantsFiguresFigure 3-1Linked-Cohort Design for Analyzing Federal CSEC CasesFigure 3-2Case Processing Trends for Federal CSEC’ Cases. 1998—2005Figure 3-3CSEC Suspects Investigated in Federal Criminal MattersFigure 3-4Disposition of Criminal Matters by Federal ProsecutorsFigure 3-5Major Reasons for Case Declinations, 2005Figure 3-6Arresting Agency for CSEC Cases, 1998 2004Figure 3-7CSEC Arrests by Offense Type. 1998 2005Figure 3-8Defendants in CSEC Cases, 1998 2005Figure 3-9Number of Defendants per CaseFigure 3-10Defendants in Cases Filed in U.S. District Court with a CSEC Charge, 1998 2005Figure 3-11Mean Number of Cases Filed in U.S. I)istrict Court with a CSEC Charge. 1998 2005Figure 3-12Change in Number of Defendants in Cases Filed in U.S. District Court Charged with aCSEC Offense, 1998—2005Figure 3-13Demographic Characteristics of Defendants in Cases Filed in U.S. District Court for aCSEC Charge. 2004Figure 3-14Criminal History for all CSEC Defendants. 1998 2004Figure 3-15Criminal History for Child Sexual Exploitation Charge, 1998 2004Figure 3-16CSEC Offender Education, 1998—2004Figure 3-17Type of Counsel for CSEC Defendants, 1998—2004Figure 3-18Type of Counsel for CSEC Offenses. 1998 2004Figure 3-19Disposition of CSEC Cases. 1998—2004The (Irban Institute, Justice Policy (‘enter
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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 Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000Figure 3-20Type of Sentence in CSEC Cases. i998—2004Figure 3-21Mean Prison Sentence for CSEC Offenses, 1998 2004Figure 3-22Mean Probation Sentence for CSEC Offenses, 1998 -2004Figure 3-23Mean Fine Imposed for CSEC Offenses, 1998 2004Figure 3-24Mean Processing Time for CSEC Offenses. 1998 2004Figure 3-25Time Series Model Measuring Impact of Federal Initiatives on CSEC Prosecutions inUS. District CourtAppendicesA-iReview of the Literature on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and YouthA-2Glossary of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) TermsA-3Reference ListA-4International Actions Related to CSECA-SUmted States’ Actions Related to CSECB-iProsecutor Informational Interview GuideB-2Relevant Statutes Defining Pool of CSEC Cases in initial Stages of ProcessingB-3The Federal Justice Statistics Resource CenterB-4Research Methods for Federal Data AnalysisB-SDescriptive TablesB-6SAS Output for Time Series ModelThe (Jrban Institute, Justice Policy Center
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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 Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000List of Tables (Appendix B-5)Table ISuspects in criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S. attorneys. 1998—2005(with a CSEC oliènse as the lead charge)Table 2Suspects in CSEC criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S. attorneys, 19982005 (Disposition of the criminal matter)Table 2aSuspects in Child Pornography criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S.attorneys. 1998—2005 (Disposition of the criminal matter)Table 2bSuspects in Child Prostitution criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S.attorneys. 1998—2005 (Disposition of the criminal matter)Table 2cSuspects in Child Sex Exploitation criminal matters investigated & concluded by U.S.attorneys, 1998 2005 (Disposition of the criminal matter)Table 3Suspects in CSEC criminal matters declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys. 19982005 (Basis for declination)Table 3aSuspects in Child Pornography criminal matters declined for prosecution by U.S.attorneys. 1998—2005 (Basis for declination)Table 3bSuspects in Child Prostitution criminal matters declined for prosecution by U.S.attorneys, 1998 2005 (Basis for declination)Table 3cSuspects in Child Sex Exploitation criminal matters declined for prosecution by U.S.attorneys. 1998—2005 (Basis for declination)Table 4Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge. ] 998 2005 (mostserious filing charge)Table 5Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge, 1998 2004(Information at arrest)Table 6Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for any CSEC charge. 1998—2004(Demographics)Table 6aDefendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Pornography charge, 1998—2004 (Demographics)Table 6bDefendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge, 1998 2004(Demographics)Table 6cDefendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Sex Exploitation charge. 1998—2004 (Demographics)Table 7Defendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge. 1998 2004(Demographics)The Urban Institute, Justice Polic’ (‘enter
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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 Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000Table 7aDefendants in cases filed in US, district court for a Child Pornography charge. 19982004 (Demographics)Table 7bDefendants in cases filed in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge, 1998 2004(Demographics)Table 7cDefendants in eases tiled in U.S. district1998 2004 (Demographics)Table 8Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge, 199 2004Table 8aDefendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Pornography charge. 1998—2004Table 8bDefendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge, 1998—2004Table cDefendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Sexual Exploitation charge,1998 2004Table 9:Defendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a CSEC charge. 1998 2004: averageprocessing time and sentence imposedTable 9aDefendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Pornography charge, 1998 2004:average processing time and sentence imposedTable 9bDefendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Prostitution charge. 1998—2004:average processing time and sentence imposedTable 9eDefendants adjudicated in U.S. district court for a Child Exploitation charge, 1998—2004: average processing time and sentence imposedThe Urban Institute. Justice Policy (‘entercourt for aChild Sexual Exploitation charge,
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.WAn Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victimsof Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000List of ASECNCMECNGOsOJJDPORRPROTECT strative Office of the U.S. CourtsBureau of Justice StatisticsCoalition to Abolish Slavery and TraffickingU.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity SectionCommercial sexual exploitation of children and youthChild sex tourismDepartment of Health and Human ServicesDepartment of Homeland SecurityDivision of Unaccompanied Alien Children’s ServicesExecutive Office for U.S. AttorneysU.S. Department of JusticeEnd Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking in Children forSexual PurposesFederal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Justice Statistics Resource CenterGirls Educational and Mentoring ServicesInternet Crimes Against ChildrenInterpol Child Abuse Image DatabaseU.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementInternational Labour OrganizationInternational Office of MigrationIntemational Repository of Institutions against Sexual Exploitation of MinorsLos Angeles Youth Supportive Services, Inc.Law Enforcement against Sexual Exploitation of ChildrenNational Center for Missing and Exploited ChildrenNongovemmental organizationsOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionOffice of Refugee RelocationProsecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of ChildrenTodayVictims of Trafficking and Violence Protection ActUnited Nations Convention on the Rights of the ChildUnited Nations Children’s FundUnited Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research InstituteUnited Nations Office on Drugs and CrimeU.S. Attorney’s OfficeU.S. Marshals ServiceU.S. Sentencing CommissionUnited Nations’ World Tourism OrganizationThe Urban Institute, Justice Policy Uenter
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.SAn Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims ofFrafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTIONEach year, many children and youth are victims of commercial sexual exploitation involving actsof sex trafficking, prostitution, sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade and early marriage, pornography,stripping, and sexual performances. Reportedly, more than two million children worldwide arecommercially sexually exploited every year, with as many as 300,000 of them being victimized in theUnited 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 faceviolence, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and often are arrested anddetained as criminals.To help deter the spread of this crime, to punish its perpetrators, and to protect its victims, theU.S. Congress passed legislation aimed specifically at acts associated with CSEC, the most notable beingthe Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000. Though several years havepassed since the introduction of CSEC-focused legislation, we are just beginning to understand the impactof this legislative effort.To increase understanding of this problem and how it has been addressed through legislation, theUrban Institute, a non-partisan social and economic policy research organization, along with PolarisProject an anti-human trafficking organization based in the United States and Japan, were awarded acooperative agreement from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) toconduct a 12-month study on CSEC in the United States. The purpose of this research was to conduct anational analysis of federal prosecutions of CSEC-related cases from 1998 through 2005. This documentreports our research findings. Our goal was to answer to the following questions:Is the United States enforcing existing laws related to CSEC?BWhat are the key features of successful CSFC cases? What factors predict convictions incases? 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 thesevictims?The Urban Institute, Justice Policy center
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen 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.WAn Analysis of FederaMy Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims ofFrafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000To answer these questions. the research team conducted a literature review, informationalinterviews 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 ResourceCenter (FJSRC) database that has been managed by the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center for thepast 10 years. Though the analysis of CSEC cases contributes to the fields knowledge of enforcementaspects of the CSEC problem, this report goes further. We also assess the inter-relationship betweenenforcement and services provided to victims. This connection is of critical importance to CSECproviders and victims. To better understand it. we also conducted a half-day meeting with eightWashington. 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 theUnited States. In Chapter 3. we present our analysis of federal CSEC case data. Chapter 4 provides anoverview of what we learned from (‘SEC service providers, and Chapter 5 summarizes our study findingsand 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 thoroughdescription 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 CSFCinvestigations and prosecutions: and (3) policy makers with a means of assessing the effects of legislationaimed at comba
A-2 Glossary of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Terms A-3 Reference List A-4 International Actions Related to CSEC A-S Umted States’ Actions Related to CSEC 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 .
FFEs and FF-SHOP Enrollment i Federally-Facilitated Exchanges (FFEs) and Federally-Facilitated Small Business Health Options Program (FF-SHOP) Enrollment Manual This manual is effective as of September 2, 2020. All enrollments made on or after September 2, 2020, should be processed in accordance with the operational requirements set forth in this
approach to animal cruelty cases, more often pursuing educational interventions than prosecution because the latter is costly, time consuming, and not necessarily effective. Prosecuted Cruelty Incidents3 As seen in Table 1, the vast majority of victims were dogs and cats (84.7%) in prosecuted cases. Dogs (57.8%) were the most commonly abused .
E Federally Endangered . P or P - CH Proposed for listing or critical habitat in the Federal Register . S/A Federally protected due to similarity of appearance to a listed species . T Federally Threatened . These lists should be used only as a guideline, not as the final authority. The lists include known occurrences and areas where the .
The Quarterly Credit Union Data Summary provides an overview of the financial performance of federally insured . credit unions based on information reported by those credit unions to the National Credit Union Administration in the 2020Q3 Call Report. As of September 30, 2020, there were 5,133 federally insured credit unions with 123.7 million .
employers are mining tribal resources, building federally funded or federally assisted roads, houses, dams, clinics, schools, etc., or operating casinos, factories, or other businesses (tribal or private), a tribal government can use its soverei
May 03, 2019 · Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs Congressional Research Service 2 improving access to water supplies during a drought. These authorities are not discussed in this report.2 Table 1 summarizes financial and other key elements of the
Project Closeout Process for Division Let & Locally Administered Federally Funded Projects Webinar – March 24, 2011. Brad Hibbs, PE . the Final Claim Letter Division Let Projects Closeout Conference. Division Let Projects Closeout Conference. If ALL Outstanding Project
AutoCAD .NET Developer’s Guide Stephen Preton Autodesk Developer Technical Services Team (DevTech)
