National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

New York City Trafficking Assessment Project, 2007-2008 (ICPSR 31601)

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

The purpose of the New York City Trafficking Assessment Project (NYCTAP) was to develop a screening tool to identify likely victims of trafficking and an accompanying toolkit for service providers to support the administration of the screening tool. The NYCTAP Community Advisory Board (CAB) consisted of twelve local organizations, including four social service agencies, four legal service agencies, three community-based organizations, and one advocacy organization. In May and June of 2007, (Part 1, Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Reviews Qualitative Data) a draft of the screening tool was circulated among the CAB agencies for review. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the screening tool for comprehensiveness, section organization, question wording, and question placement. The draft NYCTAP screening tool was also circulated among law enforcement agencies at the federal and local level in November and December of 2007. Reviewers (Part 3, Law Enforcement Agency Reviews Qualitative Data) were asked to review the screening tool from the perspective of federal and local law enforcement and to suggest modifications and additions to screening tool content. In October and November of 2007, semi-structured interviews (Part 2, Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Interviews Qualitative Data) were conducted with two CAB agencies that were unable to participate in the field application of the screening tool, but had extensive experience in trafficking victim assistance that could be shared. In January and February of 2008, (Part 4, Community Advisory Board (CAB) De-briefings Qualitative Data) six of participating CAB agencies that applied the draft NYCTAP screening tool in their work with clients were asked to provide feedback on the overall usability of the screening tool, as well as tool content and tool administration.

Access Notes

  • One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions ; consult the restrictions note to learn more. You can apply online for access to the data. A login is required to apply for access. (How to apply.)

    Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Dataset(s)

DS1:  Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Reviews Qualitative Data
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS2:  Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Interviews Qualiatative Data
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS3:  Law Enforcement Agency Reviews Qualitative Data
Download:
No downloadable data files available.
DS4:  Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency De-briefings Qualitative Data
Download:
No downloadable data files available.

Study Description

Citation

Weiner, Neil, and Nicole Hala. New York City Trafficking Assessment Project, 2007-2008. ICPSR31601-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2011-07-06. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR31601.v1

Persistent URL:

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

Funding

This study was funded by:

  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice. (2005-IJ-CX-0053)

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   exploitation, human rights, human rights violations, human services, human trafficking, identured servants, law enforcement, service providers, sex trafficking, slavery

Smallest Geographic Unit:   None

Geographic Coverage:   New York (state), New York City, United States

Time Period:  

  • 2007-05--2007-06
  • 2007-10--2007-11
  • 2007-11--2007-12
  • 2008-01--2008-02

Date of Collection:  

  • 2007-05--2007-06
  • 2007-10--2007-11
  • 2007-11--2007-12
  • 2008-01--2008-02

Unit of Observation:   interview

Universe:   Users of the New York City Trafficking Assessment Project (NYCTAP) screening tool.

Data Types:   survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The 26 individual client interviews collected as a field test of the New York City Trafficking Assessment Project(NYCTAP) tool are not available as part of this data collection.

Methodology

Study Purpose:   The purpose of the New York City Trafficking Assessment Project (NYCTAP) was to develop a screening tool to identify likely victims of trafficking and an accompanying toolkit for service providers to support the administration of the screening tool.

Study Design:  

The New York City Trafficking Assessment Project (NYCTAP) was undertaken in response to the need for more accurate measurements of human trafficking. The NYCTAP's Community Advisory Board (CAB) was comprised of twelve local organizations, many with substantail experience in assisting trafficking victims. In May and June of 2007, (Part 1, Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Reviews Qualitative Data) a draft of the screening tool was circulated among the CAB agencies for review. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the screening tool for comprehensiveness, section organization, question wording, and question placement. Reviewers were asked to consider these issues from the perspective of respondent comprehension and comfort. Because they serve a range of different ethnic communities, CAB service providers were also asked to assess the cultural competence of the screening tool and offer recommendations for revising it to faciliatate respondent comprehension and comfort across cultures. The agency review sessions were conducted as semi-structured interviews, some with individual staff representatives and some with multiple staff.

The draft NYCTAP screening tool was also circulated among law enforcement agencies at the federal and local level in November and December of 2007. Reviewers (Part 3, Law Enforcement Agency Reviews Qualitative Data) were asked to review the screening tool from the perspective of federal and local law enforcement and to suggest modifications and additions to screening tool content. The review sessions were conducted as semi-structured interviews, some individual staff representatives (i.e., "individual sessions"), some with multiple staff (i.e., "group sessions").

In October and November of 2007, semi-structured interviews (Part 2, Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Interviews Qualitative Data) were conducted with two CAB agencies that were unable to participate in the field application of the screening tool, but had extensive experience in trafficking victim assistance that could be shared. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.

In January and February of 2008, six of participating CAB agencies that applied the draft NYCTAP screening tool in their work with clients were asked to provide feedback on the overall usability of the screening tool, as well as tool content and tool administration (Part 4, Community Advisory Board (CAB) De-briefings Qualitative Data). Agencies did not formally administer the screening tool in its entirety, but integrated select sections, questions or administration protocols into client intake or assessment interviews. Prior to field application, researchers conducted trainings on tool administration with participating staff at each agency. Trainings began with brief discussions of the difficulties in identifying human trafficking, the limitations of existing data and data collection strategies, and the critical need for a versatile and standardized screening tool. Participants were presented with the pilot version of the NYCTAP screening tool and an annotated guide to the tool (also in its pilot version). Agency debriefings were conducted as semi-structured interviews, three with individual staff representatives (i.e., "individual sessions"), two with multiple staff (i.e., "group sessions"). Feedback was used to further revise the screening tool and annotated guide to the screening tool into the final versions.

Sample:   Part 1 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Reviews Qualitative Data), Part 2 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Interviews Qualitative Data), and Part 4 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency De-briefings Qualitative Data): The New York City Trafficking Assessment Project (NYCTAP) Community Advisory Board (CAB) consisted of twelve local organizations, including four social service agencies, four legal service agencies, three community-based organizations, and one advocacy organization. Part 3 (Law Enforcement Agency Reviews Qualitative Data): Not available.

Weight:   None

Mode of Data Collection:   face-to-face interview

Description of Variables:  

The New York City Trafficking Assessment Project (NYCTAP) screening tool contains the following sections:

  • Section 1: Screening background (Q1a - Q1f);
  • Section 2: Personal background (Q2a - Q3d);
  • Section 3: Migration (Q4a - Q7e);
  • Section 4: Employment (Q8a - Q9c); and
  • Section 5: Working/living conditions (Q10a - Q16c).

Part 1 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Reviews Qualitative Data) focuses on Agency intake and screening, general feedback on the NYCTAP screening tool and specific (question level) feedback on the NYCTAP screening tool.

Part 2 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Interviews Qualiatative Data) addresses the topics of Agency definition of human trafficking, evolution of the agency's human trafficking work and program components, main channels of client referral, client intake processes and documentation, client protection, rapport building, and screening accuracy, challenges of T-Visa application, and research and data to improve victim assistance.

Part 3 (Law Enforcement Agency Reviews Qualitative Data) focuses on general feedback on NYCTAP screening tool and specific (question level) feedback on NYCTAP screening tool.

Part 4 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency De-briefings Qualitative Data) focused on field application, general impressions on usability, content domains (comprehensiveness, section organization, question wording and question placement), and adminstration domains (response format, recording and coding, screening timing and participation, interviewer-respondent rapport, client protection protocols, and non-English language screening).

Response Rates:   Part 1 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Reviews Qualitative Data): Staff representatives from all twelve CAB agencies participated in the focus groups and interviews. Part 2 (Commuity Advisory Board (CAB) Agency Interviews): Interviews were conducted with staff representatives from two of the twelve CAB agencies. Part 3 (Law Enforcement Agency Reviews Qualitative Data): Interviews were conducted with representatives from one federal and one local law enforcement agency. Part 4 (Community Advisory Board (CAB) Agency De-briefings Qualitative Data): Six of the CAB agencies participated in the field application of the screening tool and toolkit. De-briefing interviews were conducted staff representatives from all six of these CAB agencies.

Presence of Common Scales:   None

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Related Publications ?

Utilities

Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics

Found a problem? Use our Report Problem form to let us know.