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

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Hide

Study Purpose View help for 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 View help for 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 View help for 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.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

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

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for 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 View help for 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 View help for Presence of Common Scales

None

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2011-07-06

Version History View help for Version History

Hide

Weight View help for Weight

None

Hide