Metadata record for Law Enforcement Response to Human Trafficking and the Implications for Victims in the United States, 2005 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License . 2013-05-24 Law Enforcement Response to Human Trafficking and the Implications for Victims in the United States, 2005 20423 10.3886/ICPSR20423.v1 Clawson, Heather J. Dutch, Nicole Cummings, Megan United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 2004-WG-BX-0088 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 2011-06-13 Clawson, Heather J., Nicole Dutch, and Megan Cummings. Law Enforcement Response to Human Trafficking and the Implications for Victims in the United States, 2005 . ICPSR20423-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2011-06-13. doi:10.3886/ICPSR20423.v1 exploitation human rights human trafficking indentured servants law enforcement sex trafficking slavery ICPSR.XVII.E NACJD.X NACJD.VI NACJD.XIII The purpose of the study was to explore how local law enforcement were responding to the crime of human trafficking after the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000. The first phase of the study (Part 1, Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data) involved conducting telephone surveys with 121 federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in key cities across the country between August and November of 2005. Different versions of the telephone survey were created for the key categories of law enforcement targeted by this study (state/local investigators, police offices, victim witness coordinators, and federal agents). The telephone surveys were supplemented with interviews from law enforcement supervisors/managers, representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Human Trafficking/Smuggling Office, the United States Attorney's Office, the Trafficking in Persons Office, and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. Respondents were asked about their history of working human trafficking cases, knowledge of human trafficking, and familiarity with the TVPA. Other variables include the type of trafficking victims encountered, how human trafficking cases were identified, and the law enforcement agency's capability to address the issue of trafficking. The respondents were also asked about the challenges and barriers to investigating human trafficking cases and to providing services to the victims. In the second phase of the study (Part 2, Case File Review Qualitative Data) researchers collected comprehensive case information from sources such as case reports, sanitized court reports, legal newspapers, magazines, and newsletters, as well as law review articles. This case review examined nine prosecuted cases of human trafficking since the passage of the TVPA. The research team conducted an assessment of each case focusing on four core components: identifying the facts, defining the problem, identifying the rule to the facts (e.g., in light of the rule, how law enforcement approached the situation), and conclusion.

The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 by answering the following questions:

How are law enforcement agencies organizing their response to human trafficking cases? What are current practices?

What barriers/challenges do law enforcement agencies face in responding to human trafficking cases?

What are the implications of law enforcement responses for trafficking victims?

What barriers/challenges does local law enforcement face in coordinating/collaborating with Federal law enforcement agencies and victim service provides in responding to a trafficking case and meeting the needs of victims?

This study was designed to explore how local law enforcement are responding to the crime of human trafficking. The first phase of the study (Part 1, Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data) involved conducting telephone surveys with 121 federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in key cities across the country between August and November of 2005. Different versions of the telephone survey were created for the key categories of law enforcement targeted by this study (state/local investigators, police offices, victim witness coordinators, and federal agents). Each completed telephone survey lasted an average of 60 minutes. A modest compensation was offered to law enforcement officers who were allowed to accept compensation in order to increase participation. The telephone surveys were supplemented with interviews from law enforcement supervisors/managers, representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Human Trafficking/Smuggling Office, the United States Attorney's Office, the Trafficking in Persons Office, and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The interviews were intended to provide information regarding senior management's perspective on the issue of human trafficking, identify barriers and challenges faced by law enforcement, and highlight emerging trends and best practices. On average, key stakeholder interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes. In the second phase of the study (Part 2, Case File Review Qualitative Data) researchers collected comprehensive case information from sources such as case reports, sanitized court reports, legal newspapers, magazines, and newsletters, as well as law review articles. This case review examined nine prosecuted cases of human trafficking since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to gather data on the role of law enforcement officials and other key stakeholders (i.e., attorneys, victim advocates, judges, and other court personnel) in the investigation and prosecution of these cases. Staff who conducted the legal case reviews were trained on how to use the case review protocol to ensure that information was reliably extracted from each case. Part 1 (Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data) includes demographic variables such as geographic region, position within law enforcement, years of experience, and language capabilities of the respondent. Respondents were asked about their history of working human trafficking cases, knowledge of human trafficking, and familiarity with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Other variables include the type of trafficking victims encountered, how human trafficking cases were identified, and the law enforcement agency's capability to address the issue of trafficking. The respondents were also asked about the challenges and barriers to investigating human trafficking cases and to providing services to the victims. As part of the case file review (Part 2, Case File Review Qualitative Data), the research team conducted an assessment of each case focusing on four core components: identifying the facts, defining the problem, identifying the rule to the facts (e.g., in light of the rule, how law enforcement approached the situation), and conclusion. 2005-08 2005-11 2000 2005 2005-08 2005-11 Alabama Arizona California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Maine Maryland Minnesota Missouri Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Texas United States Virginia Washington state Part 1 (Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data): Individual. Part 2 (Case File Review Qualitative Data): Court case. The universe for Part 1 (Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data) is all law enforcement personnel in the identified key cities between August and November of 2005. The universe for Part 2 (Case File Review Qualitative Data) includes all cases of human trafficking after the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000. event/transaction data survey data

The sample for Part 1 (Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data) was comprised of law enforcement personnel in key cities across the United States. Law enforcement was defined as employees whose primary responsibility is to investigate, apprehend, or detain individuals suspected or convicted of criminal acts, and who work with victims during this process within a public law enforcement agency. Key cities were chosen based on the following criteria:

Known trafficking activity in the communities

Existing contacts within law enforcement and other agencies working in the area of trafficking

Established anti-trafficking task forces and/or comprehensive initiatives aimed at combating trafficking

The cities originally selected were San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas/Fort Worth, Miami, Atlanta, and New York City. To increase sample size, a decision was made to expand the number of target cities for the law enforcement telephone surveys to other key cities within the United States that met the same criteria described above.

Part 2 (Case File Review Qualitative Data) sample included the nine cases of human trafficking prosecuted since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000.

record abstracts , telephone interview none

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. This data collection does not include data from the discussion forums with established anti-trafficking task forces. For Part 1 (Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data), 292 individuals were contacted for the telephone survey. Of these contacts, 82 were ineligible to participate because they reported having no familiarity or experience working on trafficking cases. There were a total of 121 completed surveys and 89 non-responses (11 refusals and 78 non-contacts). The response rate for the telephone surveys was 58 percent. For Part 2 (Case File Review Qualitative Data) response rates are not applicable. Part 1 (Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data): Several Likert-type scales were used. Part 2 (Case File Review Qualitative Data): None. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Additional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions field. The data are restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement form and specify the reasons for the request. A copy of the Restricted Data Use Agreement form can be requested by calling 800-999-0960. Researchers can also download this form as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the download page associated with this dataset. Completed forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Law Enforcement Interview Quantitative Data Case File Review Qualitative Data