Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Congressional research reportAug 5, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking:

Juvenile Justice Issues

(name redacted)

Specialist in Domestic Security

August 5, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43677

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Summary

There has been growing concern over sex trafficking of children in the United States. Demand for

sex with children (and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation of children) is steady, and

profit to sex traffickers has increased. Law enforcement is challenged not only by prosecuting

traffickers and buyers of sex with children, but also by how to handle the girls and boys whose

bodies are sexually exploited for profit.

Under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA; P.L. 106-386), the

primary law that addresses trafficking, sex trafficking of children is a federal crime; moreover, an

individual under the age of 18 who is involved in commercial sex activities is considered a victim

of these crimes. Despite this, at the state and local levels, juvenile victims of sex trafficking may

at times be treated as criminals or juvenile delinquents rather than victims of crime. Of note, there

are no comprehensive data that address the number of prostituted or otherwise sexually trafficked

children, and there are limited studies on the proportion of these juveniles who are treated as

offenders.

A number of factors may, alone or in combination, contribute to the criminalization of juvenile

trafficking victims. One is a lack of victim identification and an awareness of key indicators that

may help in identifying victims. Even in states that statutorily consider juveniles involved in

commercial sex to be victims, law enforcement may not have received sufficient training to be

able to identify victims. Another factor is a lack of secure shelters and specialized services for

victims; despite knowing that the juvenile is a victim, law enforcement may charge the individual

with a crime so as to place the victim into one of the only available safe and secure

environments—a detention facility within the juvenile justice system.

Researchers and policy makers have suggested a number of options aimed at preventing minor

trafficking victims from being caught up in the juvenile justice system and diverting them to

programs and services that can help rehabilitate and restore these youth. These have included

supporting law enforcement training on human trafficking, enhancing law enforcement and

community partnerships, enacting safe harbor laws preventing the prosecution of victims as

offenders, establishing diversion programs for juveniles involved in commercial sex, and

establishing provisions to seal or expunge records of trafficked youth’s involvement in the

juvenile justice systems.

Because the federal government considers juveniles involved in prostitution as victims of

trafficking, and because much of the policing to combat prostitution and sex trafficking—both of

adults and children—happens at the state level, federal policy makers have considered how to

influence states’ treatment of trafficking victims (particularly minors) such that state policies are

more in line with those of the federal government. Financial incentives from federal grants and

victim compensation funds could be provided through a variety of avenues. These routes include

TVPA-authorized grants, juvenile and criminal justice grants, Violence Against Women Act

(VAWA; P.L. 113-4)-authorized grants, and the Crime Victims Fund.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Contents

Federal Conceptualization of Minors as Sex Trafficking Victims ................................................... 2

Variations in States’ Conceptualization of Minors as Sex Trafficking Victims ............................... 3

Factors Impacting Criminalization ............................................................................................ 3

Prevalence of Criminalization ................................................................................................... 4

Criminal Justice Policy Options ...................................................................................................... 6

Law Enforcement Training and Community Partnerships ........................................................ 6

Training ............................................................................................................................... 7

Community Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 7

Safe Harbor................................................................................................................................ 9

Juvenile Problem Solving Courts and Diversion Programs .............................................. 11

Vacating and Expunging Convictions ............................................................................... 13

Federal Incentives to States ........................................................................................................... 14

TVPA Authorized Grants for Law Enforcement...................................................................... 15

Authorized and Appropriated ............................................................................................ 15

Authorized but not Appropriated....................................................................................... 15

Juvenile Justice Grants ............................................................................................................ 16

JJDPA State Formula Grants ............................................................................................. 17

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program.................................................................. 17

Criminal Justice Grants: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)

Program ................................................................................................................................ 18

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Programs ................................................................... 18

Compensation: Crime Victims Fund ....................................................................................... 19

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

here has been growing concern over sex trafficking of children in the United States.1

Demand for sex with children (and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation of

children) is steady, and profit to sex traffickers has increased.2 While law enforcement,

policy makers, social service providers, and the public have acknowledged the presence of this

issue, they have grappled with measuring the extent of child sex trafficking as well as

determining how best to combat it from a number of angles.

Within the criminal justice realm, law

enforcement is tasked with investigating and

prosecuting both the supply side (sex

traffickers, or pimps)4 as well as the demand

side (buyers of commercial sex) of sex

trafficking. In addition to the challenges in

prosecuting traffickers and buyers of sex with

children, law enforcement faces challenges

with how to handle the girls and boys whose

bodies are sexually exploited for profit.5

Sex Trafficking of Minors: Under the

Umbrella of Human Trafficking

Human trafficking involves the exploitation of individuals

for forced labor or commercial sex. Federal law defines

“severe forms of trafficking in persons” as

(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 act has not attained 18

years 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.3

Indeed, the U.S. view of juveniles involved in

commercial sexual activity has evolved over

the past decade. How to categorize the

Experts generally agree that this definition includes the

juveniles involved in commercial sexual

prostitution of minors.

activities has become one of the perennial

issues for law enforcement and policy makers.

A central question is whether these youth should be characterized as victims or perpetrators. The

federal government and some states have conceptualized these children differently, and this

variability has contributed to the implementation of differing policies throughout the country. In

short, while the federal government considers these minors as victims and thus eligible for

specialized services, some states may still treat these minors as perpetrators engaged in

prostitution and related crimes.

This report examines juvenile victims of sex trafficking and their intersection with states’ juvenile

justice systems throughout the United States. It outlines the federal conceptualization of minors

involved in commercial sexual activities and discusses factors that may contribute to the

For more information and an overview of sex trafficking of children in the United States, see CRS Report R41878,

Sex Trafficking of Children in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted), (name redact

ed), and (name redacted). For more information on human trafficking broadly, see CRS Report

RL34317, Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) and Liana Rosen; see also

U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2013, June 2013. In this report, the terms “child,” “minor,”

“youth,” and “juvenile” are all used interchangeably to refer to an individual under the age of 18.

Meredith Dank et al., Estimating the Size and Structure of the Underground Commercial Sex Economy in Eight Major

US Cities, Research Report, Urban Institute, March 2014; and U.S. Department of Justice, The National Strategy for

Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to Congress, Washington DC, August 2010, pp. 32-33.

22 U.S.C. §7102.

Of note, when referring to the trafficking of minors, the terms “pimp” and “trafficker” are synonymous. This does not

necessarily hold true when referring to the trafficking of adults. In the context of adults, a pimp who does not use force,

fraud, or coercion to induce adults to prostitute themselves would not be considered a trafficker.

There are separate challenges for conceptualizing adults and children involved in commercial sexual activity. This

report focuses on challenges for law enforcement when presented with the juveniles (girls and boys) involved in

commercial sexual activity.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

treatment of sex trafficking victims as perpetrators. It then outlines various criminal justice policy

options and approaches to victim-centered policing regarding sex trafficking of minors. The

report concludes with a discussion of the federal role in incentivizing states’ juvenile and criminal

justice systems and treatment of sex trafficking victims.

Federal Conceptualization of Minors as Sex

Trafficking Victims

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) is the primary law that

addresses human trafficking.6 In outlining what constitutes “severe forms of trafficking in

persons,” the TVPA includes both sex trafficking and labor trafficking. Generally, both forms of

trafficking involve some element of force, fraud, or coercion. With respect to sex trafficking,

however, the law specifies that when a minor—an individual under the age of 18—is involved,

the commercial sexual activity need not contain force, fraud, or coercion in order to be deemed

sex trafficking.7 In other words, for purposes of prosecuting a trafficker, if a minor is involved in

a commercial sex act, he or she is considered a victim of sex trafficking (and thus a victim of a

severe form of trafficking in persons) in the federal government’s eyes. Notable elements of this

position include the following:

•

A minor is considered a victim of trafficking regardless of whether the

commercial sex act is believed to be forced or voluntary.8

•

A minor is considered a victim of trafficking regardless of whether the minor

represents himself/herself as an adult. The law provides that in prosecutions

involving a minor victim, the government is not required to prove that the

defendant knew that the victim was under the age of 18.9

•

A minor is considered a victim of trafficking regardless of whether he or she is

removed from his or her community.

As the TVPA considers juveniles involved in prostitution as victims of trafficking, federal

enforcement efforts are aimed at combating the traffickers and buyers of commercial sex. At the

federal level, these perpetrators are often prosecuted for violations of the Mann Act,10 the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),11 or the TVPA.12

P.L. 106-386. This act is also called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The TVPA is codified under 18

U.S.C. §1591 et seq. (the criminal statute pertaining to sex trafficking of children), 22 U.S.C. §7101 et seq., and 42

U.S.C. §14044 et seq.

22 U.S.C. §7102.

18 U.S.C. §1591(a).

18 U.S.C. §1591(c).

18 U.S.C. §2421 et seq. The Mann Act was enacted in 1910 to fight against prostitution and other forms of sexual

misconduct. As currently written, the Mann Act, among other things, makes it a felony to knowingly transport “an

individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession

of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any

person can be charged with a criminal offence.” 18 U.S.C. §2423(a).

18 U.S.C. §1961-1968; Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-452). RICO allows for the

prosecution of anyone who participates or conspires to participate in a criminal enterprise/organization through two

acts of “racketeering activity” within a 10-year period of time. The predicate offenses for racketeering include various

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Variations in States’ Conceptualization of Minors as

Sex Trafficking Victims

Notably, the investigation and prosecution of child prostitution are mostly state matters. Every

state outlaws the prostitution of children13 as well as human trafficking broadly (including sex

trafficking of children).14 However, despite their protected status at the federal level, juvenile

victims of sex trafficking may at times be labeled and treated as criminals or juvenile delinquents

at the state and local levels.15 Consequently, these children may be arrested and placed in juvenile

detention facilities with juveniles who have committed serious crimes instead of in environments

where they can receive needed social and protective services. In addition, because of being

processed through the criminal justice system, they may then have permanent records as

offenders.16 Some researchers have noted that labeling these victims as prostitutes or offenders

and subsequently placing them in the juvenile justice system is a practice that may further harm

these victimized youth.17

Factors Impacting Criminalization

A number of factors may, alone or in combination, contribute to the criminalization of juvenile

trafficking victims. One such factor is the variability in state laws regarding sexual activities and

youth. For example, states may take varying stances regarding the criminality of prostitution and

solicitation. They may also have differing thresholds for the age of consent, or when an individual

can legally consent to sexual intercourse (this typically ranges from 16-18 years of age). In

(...continued)

state and federal crimes listed in the U.S. Code. For more information on RICO, see CRS Report 96-950, RICO: A

Brief Sketch, by (name redacted).

Specific statues available to prosecute such crimes include, but are not limited to, the following: 18 U.S.C. §1591—

Recruiting, enticing, or obtaining (including via force, fraud, or coercion) individuals to engage in commercial sex acts,

or benefiting from such activities;18 U.S.C. §2421—Transporting individuals across state or international lines for

prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities;18 U.S.C. §2422—Enticing or coercing an individual to cross a state or

international line for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities; 18 U.S.C. §2423—Transporting a minor across

state or international lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities; 18 U.S.C. §2424—Keeping an alien in a

house or place of prostitution; and 18 U.S.C. §2241(c)—Engaging in interstate travel for sexual activities with a child

under age 12, and sexual activities with a child under age 16. For more information on the breadth of federal offenses

regarding sexual abuse of children, see CRS Report R42132, Sexual Abuse of Children: Federal Criminal Offenses, by

(name redacted).

U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2014, June 2014.

Polaris Project, “Wyoming Becomes 50th State to Outlaw Human Trafficking,” press release, February 27, 2013.

A number of organizations evaluate state initiatives to, among other things, decriminalize prostitution by minors and

divert these youth to specialized services. See, for instance, Shared Hope International, Protected Innocence Challenge,

http://sharedhope.org/what-we-do/bring-justice/reportcards/. See also Polaris Project, 2013 State Ratings on Human

Trafficking Laws, http://www.polarisproject.org/what-we-do/policy-advocacy/national-policy/state-ratings-on-humantrafficking-laws.

Ellen Wright Clayton, Richard D. Krugman, and Patti Simon, eds., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and

Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States, National Academy of Sciences, September 25, 2013. See also Linda A.

Smith, Samantha Healy Vardaman, and Melissa A. Snow, The National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking:

America’s Prostituted Children, Shared Hope International, May 2009.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service, “Diversion Programs: An Overview,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin,

September 1999.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

addition, states may adopt different cutoff ages for when an individual is considered a juvenile or

an adult for criminal justice purposes under state law.18

Another factor impacting the potential criminalization of juvenile sex trafficking victims involves

awareness of key indicators that may help in identifying victims. Victims often do not readily

self-identify as such,19 and this leaves the challenge of victim identification to authorities such as

law enforcement and social service providers. A law enforcement officer who has not been trained

in identifying children as victims of commercial sexual exploitation may mistakenly charge a

child with a crime such as prostitution.

In addition to instances in which victims may enter into the juvenile justice system because law

enforcement does not perceive that the juvenile is a trafficking victim, there are cases in which

juveniles enter the system despite law enforcement knowing that the juvenile is a victim. An

officer who recognizes that an individual is a victim may charge the individual with a crime so as

to place the victim into one of the only available safe and secure environments—a detention

facility within the juvenile justice system.20 There are few safe facilities for child victims of sex

trafficking, and law enforcement may rely on the security of juvenile justice facilities, even if

they may not be the most appropriate option for the placement of trafficking victims.

Prevalence of Criminalization

The most recent data indicate that “136 males and 443 females under 18 years of age were

reported to the federal government as having been arrested for prostitution or commercialized

vice by state and local authorities” in 2012.21 Of note, there are no comprehensive data that

address the number of prostituted or otherwise sexually trafficked juveniles who are treated as

offenders. Several studies provide some insight into this number, including how law enforcement

agencies process children who are prostituted. These studies vary widely, however, in their

populations considered, time frames examined, and conclusions drawn.

•

One study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), relied on

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)22 data from 76 law

enforcement agencies in 13 states. Researchers examined 241 prostitution

incidents between 1997 and 2000 that involved juvenile offenders, juvenile

For information on the age delineation between juvenile and adult court in each of the states, see Juvenile Age of

Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, National Conference of State Legislatures, January 10, 2014.

Polaris Project, In Their Shoes: Understanding Victims’ Mindsets and Common Barriers to Victim Identification,

2010. See also Heather J. Clawson, Nicole M. Dutch, and Amy Salomon, et al., Study of HHS Programs Serving

Human Trafficking Victims: Final Report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 2009.

Notably, service providers generally advocate for secure facilities for trafficking victims “in order to establish

physical and emotional safety” for victims. See Heather J. Clawson and Lisa Goldblatt Grace, Finding a Path to

Recovery: Residential Facilities for Minor Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, September 2007.

U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2014, June 2014, p. 401.

NIBRS is part of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. Although both NIBRS and UCR are incidentbased reporting systems, NIBRS presents more detailed information about crime incidents than does the UCR. NIBRS

does not have as widespread of participation from state and local police, and the FBI has indicated that the data are not

sufficiently robust to make broad generalizations about crime in the United States. See the FBI’s website at

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#nibrs. For more information about UCR and NIBRS, see archived CRS Report

RL34309, How Crime in the United States Is Measured, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

victims, or both. Findings from this study reveal that, across these 241 incidents,

229 juveniles were implicated as offenders, and arrests were made in about 74%

of those cases.23 Although the percentage of juveniles involved in prostitution

who were arrested is lower than the percentage of adult prostitutes arrested

(90%),24 this nonetheless suggests that in the sample examined, juveniles were

more likely to be treated as offenders than as victims. Researchers cautioned that

the data were “based on a small number of cases from an unrepresentative

sample of jurisdictions.”25 Of note, data from this research were obtained from

prostitution cases occurring before the enactment of the TVPA. While the TVPA

is federal legislation, and the cases in this study come from state and local law

enforcement agencies, the TVPA may have influenced states’ perceptions and

treatment of juveniles involved in commercial sex; as such, the results from this

research may not be reflective of modern trends.

•

Another review, part of the National Juvenile Prostitution Study,26 surveyed

police about their juvenile prostitution cases from 2005. Using survey data from

132 agencies, researchers categorized juveniles as victims, as delinquents, or as

both victims and delinquents based on how they were treated by police. Juveniles

were categorized as being treated as victims if (1) only the exploiter was arrested

or (2) the juvenile and exploiter were arrested but the charge against the juvenile

was not a prostitution-related charge (e.g., disturbing the peace or a drug charge).

Juveniles were categorized as being treated as delinquents if they were the only

ones arrested or detained. They were categorized as being treated as both victims

and delinquents if the exploiter was arrested on a charge specific to a sexual

assault against a minor and the juvenile was also arrested on a prostitution-related

charge. Based on this classification, 53% of juveniles were classified as victims,

31% as delinquents, and 16% as both victims and delinquents. For the cases

where a child was classified as both a victim and delinquent, researchers

examined the case summaries more carefully to see whether they could be

classified more accurately as victims or as delinquents. In all cases, researchers

were prompted to change the status to victim only because either (1) the initial

charges were dropped or (2) there was a specific comment from the investigator

that the only reason the juvenile was charged was so they could get needed

services. Overall, 69% of juveniles were ultimately classified as victims and 31%

as delinquents. The study found a strong and significant association between how

the case came to the police’s attention and how the juvenile was treated by law

enforcement. Cases that began through a police report (i.e., a report by the

juvenile, a family member, a social service provider, or others) were almost eight

times more likely to result in the juvenile being treated as a victim than those

cases that began through action taken by the police (i.e., surveillance or

undercover operations). Juveniles were also more likely to be treated as victims if

David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod, Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS, U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 2004, p. 5.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 4.

Kimberly J. Mitchell, David Finklehor, and Janis Wolak, “Conceptualizing Juvenile Prostitution as Child

Maltreatment: Findings from the National Juvenile Prostitution Study,” Child Maltreatment, vol. 15, no. 1 (February

2010).

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

they were younger, female, frightened, or were dirty or had body odor at the time

of the initial encounter with police.

•

A third study examined case files (from police departments in six U.S. cities) of

126 youth who had allegedly been involved in prostitution between 2000 and

2006.27 Similar to the findings from the National Juvenile Prostitution Study, data

from this review indicate that 60% of police viewed the prostituted youth as

victims and 40% thought of them as offenders. These juveniles were more likely

to be considered victims if, among other things, they showed greater law

enforcement cooperation, they could identify a greater number of exploiters, they

had no prior criminal record, and they resided locally (in or near the jurisdiction

of the police investigation). Researchers also noted that even if police

conceptualized victims as such, they may arrest them on criminal charges and

take them into custody as a protective response.

Criminal Justice Policy Options

As researchers have noted, “law enforcement personnel often are the first to respond to

commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking cases” and “their ability to identify victims,

investigate cases, and make appropriate referrals is crucial.”28 In other words, juvenile victims

may come in contact with law enforcement before other officials or victim services specialists.

As such, some experts have focused on law enforcement and juvenile justice systems’ central

roles in combating sex trafficking.

Researchers and policy makers have suggested a number of options aimed at preventing minor

trafficking victims from being caught up in the juvenile justice system and diverting them to

programs and services that can help rehabilitate and restore these youth. These have included

supporting law enforcement training on human trafficking, enhancing law enforcement and

community partnerships, enacting safe harbor laws that prevent the prosecution of victims as

offenders, establishing diversion programs for juveniles involved in commercial sex, and

establishing provisions to seal or expunge records of trafficked youth’s involvement in the

juvenile justice systems.

Law Enforcement Training and Community Partnerships

As noted, barriers to treating juveniles involved in commercial sex as victims rather than

perpetrators include, among other things, a lack of knowledge and victim identification by law

enforcement and other officials as well as a lack of secure facilities where these minors can

receive appropriate shelter and specialized services. As such, some states and localities have

legislatively or otherwise implemented law enforcement training on human trafficking awareness

and/or have established community partnerships that can provide victimized youth with a segue

away from the justice system and into specialized services.

Stephanie Halter, “Factors That Influence Police Conceptualizations of Girls Involved in Prostitution in Six U.S.

Cities: Child Sexual Exploitation Victims or Delinquents?” Child Maltreatment, vol. 15, no. 2 (May 2010).

Ellen Wright Clayton, Richard D. Krugman, and Patti Simon, eds., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and

Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States: Infographic, National Academy of Sciences.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Training

At the federal level, some agencies have established law enforcement training for issues

surrounding human trafficking victim identification and case investigation. The Departments of

Justice and Homeland Security, for example, have provided guidance to law enforcement on

identifying potential indicators of human trafficking.

•

DOJ, through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, has developed “training for law

enforcement and communities to identify trafficking in persons.”29

•

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Blue Campaign,

provides law enforcement with information on recognizing key indicators of

trafficking.30

In addition, the TVPA has authorized grants—including the DOJ Grants to State and Local Law

Enforcement for Anti-trafficking Programs and the Grants for Law Enforcement Training

Programs31—that may be used for such law enforcement training, though these grants have not

received funding.

At the state level, some states have legislatively required or supported such law enforcement

training. Over half of states “have enacted statutes requiring or encouraging law enforcement

personnel to receive training regarding human trafficking-related matters.”32 This may take a

number of forms. Some states not only require training, but also outline specific training criteria

in statute. Others require training but do not statutorily outline the training criteria. Some allow

for, but do not statutorily require, training. Still others are statutorily silent on law enforcement

training.33 Of note, the lack of a statutory mandate or support for human trafficking-related

training does not indicate that such training is unavailable in a given state. It may be

independently initiated by state agencies or other nonprofit organizations.

Community Partnerships

One federally supported partnership model is DOJ’s Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force

Initiative.34 Through this initiative, DOJ funds nationwide anti-trafficking task forces, which are

composed of federal, state, and local law enforcement, U.S. Attorneys, and victim service

providers. The task forces (of which there were 16 in FY2013,35 down from 26 in FY2012

because of a reduction in task force funding)36 coordinate cases and conduct law enforcement

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Initiative,

https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=51.

Department of Homeland Security, Blue Campaign, Law Enforcement, https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/lawenforcement.

For more information on these programs see the section of this report on TVPA “Authorized but not Appropriated”

grants.

Polaris Project, 2013 Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws: Training for Law Enforcement, August 2013, p. 1.

As of August 2013, twenty-nine states had enacted legislation to mandate or support human trafficking awareness

training for law enforcement.

Ibid., pp. 1-2.

For more information on this Initiative, see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/httf.html.

U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2014, June 2014, p. 399.

U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2013, June 2013, p. 383.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

training on the identification, investigation, and prosecution of human trafficking cases. Research

has reportedly shown that locales with task forces are more likely to identify and prosecute

trafficking cases.37

Some state criminal justice systems and local law enforcement agencies have partnered with

social service providers, among others, to prevent trafficked youth from becoming enmeshed in

the juvenile justice system or to divert these victims to specialized services.

•

Dallas Police Department & Letot Center. In 2005, the Dallas Police

Department created the Child Exploitation/High Risk Victims & Trafficking Unit

(CE/HRVTU). The unit tracks high-risk victims and trains police officers on

victim identification. While the unit does not generally charge these victims with

prostitution, they do charge them with lesser crimes in order to detain them in a

staff secure facility—the Letot Center.38 The Letot Center partners with the

Dallas Police Department to provide shelter and community-based services to

high-risk and trafficked youth. It serves about 250-300 individuals every year.39

•

Georgia Care Connection. In 2009, the Georgia Governor’s Office for Children

and Families established the Georgia Care Connection (GCC), a coordination

center to address the needs of child sex trafficking victims. Specifically, it was

“created to establish and sustain comprehensive assessment, treatment and after

care services for victims.”40 The GCC is establishing standardized procedures for

how jurisdictions handle youth across the state. Notably, through this program,

victims are not arrested.41

Experts have noted that collaboration among law enforcement and other elements of the

community—including victim service providers, health care providers, businesses, schools, and

other members of the criminal justice world—serves critical roles, helps increase awareness of

the trafficking problem, and supports research and information sharing.42 This may be critical, as

experts have noted that “[m]any professionals and individuals who interact with youth—such as

teachers, health care providers, child welfare professionals, and law enforcement—are unaware

that these crimes occur and often are ill-equipped with how to respond to victims, survivors, and

those at risk.”43 One of the main questions that arises is which entity should (or is best equipped

to) lead coordination efforts. Moreover, should there be just one entity that leads these efforts? If

so, is this law enforcement or another segment of the professional community? As some have

The number of investigations and prosecutions among the task forces varies widely. More investigations are for sex

trafficking than labor trafficking, which may be a result of law enforcement’s ability to rely upon pre-existing vice

units devoted to prosecution enforcement. U.S. Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 2010, June 2010, p.

340.

Rami Badawy, Shifting the Paradigm from Prosecution to Protection of Child Victims of Prostitution, National

District Attorneys’ Association, Part II of III, November 8, 2010.

For more information on the Letot Center, see http://www.letotgirlscenter.org/index.htm.

Georgia Governor’s Office for Children and Families, Grant Programs, https://children.georgia.gov/yd-grantprograms.

Rami Badawy, Shifting the Paradigm from Prosecution to Protection of Child Victims of Prostitution, National

District Attorneys’ Association, Part II of III, November 8, 2010.

Ellen Wright Clayton, Richard D. Krugman, and Patti Simon, eds., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and

Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States: Infographic, National Academy of Sciences.

Ellen Wright Clayton, Richard D. Krugman, and Patti Simon, eds., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and

Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States, National Academy of Sciences: Report Brief, September 25, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

noted, law enforcement personnel are often first responders in child sex trafficking cases.44 This

may naturally lead to a community coordination role. Nonetheless, while some states may

designate law enforcement to lead an anti-trafficking coordination role, others—such as

California, through the newly authorized Commercially Sexually Exploited Children Program45—

may delegate state social services or other officials to coordinate such efforts.

Just as law enforcement practices may vary across states and localities, so too may their

community coordination efforts. As such, in contemplating the federal government’s role, policy

makers may question whether they want to influence the implementation or direction of state and

local law enforcement roles in community partnerships that may serve to identify victimized

youth and keep them out of the traditional juvenile justice systems.

Safe Harbor

As noted, the federal government considers juveniles involved in commercial sexual activities as

victims of trafficking, and these victims are eligible to receive specialized services where

available. Researchers, victim advocates, and some policy makers have recommended that states

adopt policies that are in line with the federal stance on child victims of sex trafficking. More

specifically, they have proposed encouraging states and localities to adopt what have been

referred to as “safe harbor” laws, preventing minor victims of trafficking from being prosecuted

for prostitution and ensuring that they are provided with specialized services.46

Congress outlined its conceptualization of safe harbor via the 2013 TVPA reauthorization by

amending the requirements for the Attorney General’s model state trafficking statute. The

Attorney General is required to promulgate a model state trafficking statute, and the 2013 TVPA

reauthorization updated this requirement to note that the model statute should include a package

of safe harbor provisions guiding states to

(A) treat an individual under 18 years of age who has been arrested for engaging in, or

attempting to engage in, a sexual act with another person in exchange for monetary

compensation as a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons;

(B) prohibit the charging or prosecution of an individual described in subparagraph (A) for a

prostitution offense;

providers, including comprehensive service or community-based programs that provide

assistance to child victims of commercial sexual exploitation; and

(D) provide that an individual described in subparagraph (A) shall not be required to prove

fraud, force, or coercion in order to receive the protections described under this paragraph.47

Ellen Wright Clayton, Richard D. Krugman, and Patti Simon, eds., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and

Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States: Infographic, National Academy of Sciences.

This program was authorized in June 2014 by California legislation, SB855.

Ellen Wright Clayton, Richard D. Krugman, and Patti Simon, eds., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and

Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United States, National Academy of Sciences, September 25, 2013, p. 8. See also

Polaris Project, Safe Harbor: Protecting Sexually Exploited Minors, August 2013.

P.L. 113-4; 22 U.S.C. §7101 note.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

As of August 2013, 18 states had “enacted statutes providing some measure of safe harbor

protection to minor victims of human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation.”48

Nonetheless, as some researchers have pointed out, states with enacted safe harbor statutes may

continue to arrest and prosecute juvenile victims as perpetrators—“an inconsistency between the

law as it is written and implementation of law by law enforcement.”49 For example, nine states

reportedly had some form of safe harbor protection in place prior to 2012;50 of those, three

states—New York, Illinois, and Tennessee—fully eliminated criminal liability for juveniles under

the age of 18 involved in prostitution.51 Nonetheless, according to FBI data, all of these states still

arrested individuals under the age of 18 for prostitution (including commercialized vice) in

2012.52 Notably, these arrest data do not mean that the juveniles were actually prosecuted.

However, the arresting of these victims as perpetrators may be reflective of a number of issues

such as a lack of law enforcement awareness of the victimization of these juveniles or a lack of

alternative secure shelters and specialized services available to these victims.

Some have suggested that implementation of safe harbor laws should encompass more than

statutory decriminalization (in which minors are classified as victims—and made eligible for

services—rather than held criminally liable for prostitution) or diversion (in which minors must

receive rehabilitative services if charged with prostitution) of minors involved in prostitution.

They assert that it should also include elements such as

•

training for officials who may come into contact with prostituted minors;

•

task force and interagency information sharing, including the exchange of

information to connect exploited youth with services;

•

availability of victim services including physical, mental, emotional, familial,

educational, and recreational rehabilitation;

•

enhanced penalties for exploiters—both traffickers and buyers—of commercial

sex with minors; and

•

funding to implement safe harbor legislation and protect minors.53

Polaris Project, 2013 Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws: Safe Harbor—Protecting Sexually Exploited

Minors, August 2013, p. 2. These states include Michigan, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Washington,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Tennessee, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska,

and North Carolina. In addition, while Texas does not have a safe harbor statute, a 2010 Texas Supreme Court Decision

noted that children cannot be prosecuted for prostitution because they cannot consent to sex.

Lauren Jekowsky, Un-Safe Harbor: Why U.S. State Legislation is Ineffectively Addressing Sex Trafficking of Minors,

Human Trafficking Center, March 10, 2014.

These states include Michigan (the provision that indicates only individuals 16 and over can be prosecuted for

prostitution was not enacted as a separate safe harbor law), New York (2008), Connecticut (2010), Illinois (2010),

Washington (2010), Massachusetts (2011), Minnesota (2011), Tennessee (2011), and Vermont (2011). While Texas

does not have safe harbor statutes, a 2010 Texas Supreme Court Decision noted that children cannot be prosecuted for

In 2012, Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio implemented some form of safe harbor protection, and in 2013, Arkansas,

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, and North Carolina did so.

Polaris Project, 2013 Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws: Safe Harbor—Protecting Sexually Exploited

Minors, August 2013; and Lauren Jekowsky, Un-Safe Harbor: Why U.S. State Legislation is Ineffectively Addressing

Sex Trafficking of Minors, Human Trafficking Center, March 10, 2014.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2012, Table 69.

Lauren Jekowsky, Un-Safe Harbor: Why U.S. State Legislation is Ineffectively Addressing Sex Trafficking of Minors,

Human Trafficking Center, March 10, 2014. See also Darren Geist, “Finding Safe Harbor: Protection, Prosecution, and

State Strategies to Address Prostituted Minors,” Legislation and Policy Brief, vol. 4, no. 2 (2012).

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

As such, federal policy makers interested in incentivizing states to enact safe harbor laws may

consider whether the incentive is for the enactment of such laws or for their full implementation

by the states.

Juvenile Problem Solving Courts and Diversion Programs

In moving youth victimized by commercial

sexual exploitation away from the traditional

juvenile justice system and away from being

labeled as prostitutes or offenders, diversion

or specialty courts may serve as an option.

Diversion Programs

Diversion programs broadly aim to move certain

categories of arrested individuals away from traditional

criminal justice settings into environments where they

can receive specialized services. These programs

generally defer prosecution on the condition of

successful completion of a treatment program. At that

point, charges may be reduced or dismissed. This may or

may not involve records being expunged.

•

Take drug courts, for instance. While

these courts may vary in their

populations served, specific program

Generally in the juvenile justice arena, “[t]he concept of

models, and resources, they all

diversion is based on the theory that processing certain

generally follow a model that involves youth through the juvenile justice system may do more

harm than good.”54 As such, these programs move youth

offender assessment, judicial

away from the juvenile justice system and into

interaction, monitoring (such as drug

intervention or treatment programs.

testing) and supervision, graduated

sanctions and incentives, and

treatment services.55 Adult, juvenile, and family drug courts, among others, are

tailored to address the needs of specific populations. Juvenile drug courts are

guided by 16 strategies56 including community partnerships, drug testing, and

family engagement. At the end of June 2013, there were 447 juvenile drug courts

throughout the country.57

•

Another example of diversion courts is the Juvenile Mental Health Courts

(JMHCs). These courts aim to divert youth with behavioral health needs from

juvenile detention facilities to community-based services.58 Just as the juvenile

drug courts (despite their variances) follow a general model, so do the JMHCs.

Researchers have noted that common characteristics include regularly scheduled

dockets for cases and status hearings; less formal interactions between the court

officials and participants; screenings for trauma, substance abuse, and mental

health disorders; status meetings involving a team of officials and the involved

National Criminal Justice Reference Service, “Diversion Programs: An Overview,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin,

September 1999, referencing Richard J. Lundman, Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency, 2nd ed. (New

York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Youth involved in the juvenile justice system may acquire a delinquent selfimage or may be stigmatized in the eyes of others. See Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic

Mental Health, ed. Elissa P. Benedek, Peter Ash, and Charles L. Scott (American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., 2010), p.

372.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Drug Courts, June 30, 2013. See also

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Adult Drug Courts: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could

Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts, GAO-12-53, December 2011.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in

Practice, NCJ 197866, March 2003.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Drug Courts, June 30, 2013.

Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Juvenile

Mental Health Treatment Courts Database, http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/grant_programs/juvenilemhc.asp.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

youth; systems of accountability; graduated incentives and sanctions; and defined

criteria for program success.59

Specifically, diversion courts targeting trafficking victims charged with prostitution and related

offenses have been suggested as a means to divert these youth out of the traditional juvenile

justice systems. Some may argue that diversion courts are not an ideal option for dealing with

trafficking victims—relative to full decriminalization and immunity from prosecution—because

they may still allow for trafficked youth to be processed through the juvenile justice system.

Others, however, may argue that diversion courts, depending upon their structure, may have

benefits such as providing victims with secure shelter from exploiters and some form of specialty

services.

Diversion courts targeting youth involved in commercial sex have sometimes been referred to as

girls courts or human trafficking courts. While there does not appear to be a uniform model for

these courts (as there generally is for juvenile drug courts and juvenile mental health courts), a

number of states and localities have implemented their own variants of such programs. And, they

have taken varied approaches in their program establishment. For instance, while some programs

target young girls who are victims of sex trafficking, others target all at-risk girls, and others are

aimed at all trafficking victims regardless of gender or age.

•

Hawaii Girls Court.60 This program targets at-risk girls and female offenders.

While holding these girls accountable for their actions, the program also offers

gender specific services. Elements of the program include an open court system;

group sessions separately for girls and parents; and mental health, education, and

employment services. Of note, the Hawaii Girls Court is not specific to

trafficking victims or girls arrested for prostitution violations. Nonetheless the

court recognizes that it “focuses on the differing needs of adolescent females

who, although appearing before the court as an offender, are most often victims

of physical or sexual abuse or domestic violence themselves.”61

•

Orange County (California) Girls Court. This program targets girls in the

foster care system, and the “goal of the program is to help the young participants

facing mental health issues, substance abuse and academic failure to receive

treatment and counseling, and to gain the skills and resources they need to

achieve stable, productive lives.”62 The Orange County Girls Court does not

specifically target trafficking victims.

•

Harris County (Texas) GIRLS (Growing Independence Restoring Lives)

Court. This program targets young girls who are victims or at risk of becoming

victims of trafficking and diverts them away from the traditional juvenile justice

system. It features a multidisciplinary team of officials, judicial oversight, review

hearings, and supervision and monitoring.63 Notably, “[u]pon successful

Lisa Callahan, Henry J. Steadman, and Lindsay Gerus, Seven Common Characteristics of Juvenile Mental Health

Courts, Policy Research Associates, National Institute of Justice funded-study 2009-IJ-CX-0038, 2013.

For more information, see the Hawaii Girls Court website at http://www.girlscourt.org/aboutus.html.

Hawaii Girls Court, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.girlscourt.org/faq.html.

Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Collaborative Courts, http://www.occourts.org/directory/

collaborative-courts/.

Harris County GIRLS Court, http://www.apaintl.org/!_TADCP/documents/DrugCourtconferencepowerpointHarrisCountyGirlsCourt.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

completion of the program, GIRLS Court records are sealed to prevent the child

from carrying the stigma of a criminal adjudication.”64

•

New York Human Trafficking Intervention Initiative. This initiative is a

statewide network of human trafficking courts that “targets cases involving

individuals charged with prostitution-related offenses in an effort to identify and

assist sex trafficking victims.”65 If a court determines that a case involves a victim

needing resources, the program will connect the defendant/victim to needed

shelter, healthcare, drug treatment, and immigration services, along with

education and employment assistance. Compliance with program mandates may

lead to the dismissal or reduction of charges. This program is not specific to

juveniles or to females.

•

Franklin County (Ohio) Changing Actions to Change Habits (CATCH)

Court. The CATCH Court is a specialty docket in the Franklin County Municipal

Court geared toward “assist[ing] human trafficking victims who have been

charged with commercial sex acts.”66 This voluntary two-year program offers

“outreach, connection, advocacy, and counseling to women with multiple

solicitation charges”67 and rewards successful participants with a dismissal of

their charges.68

Because programs’ structures and implementation vary widely across states and localities, so too

may their measures of success. In deciding whether to incentivize the establishment of such

programs, policy makers may question how each program may measure “success.” Some

practitioners have noted that success of a diversion program should be measured not solely

through recidivism, but through a variety of related successes such as whether the victim has

employment, housing, or a protection order against her trafficker, to name a few.69 As such,

beyond the decision of whether to incentivize specialty courts for trafficking victims, Congress

may question whether federal incentives may be sufficiently nimble to allow for incentivizing

“successful” program results that may come in many forms.

Vacating and Expunging Convictions

As states evolve in their views of how to treat individuals (both juveniles and adults) involved in

commercial sexual activities, there remain individuals who will have or who already have

criminal records that were generated during their victimization. Because victims may be arrested,

processed through the criminal justice system, and convicted of prostitution or related offenses,

the ensuing criminal records can adversely impact their future education, employment, housing,

Statement by Assistant District Attorney Ann Johnson before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland

Security, Combating Human Trafficking in Our Major Cities, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., March 20, 2014.

New York State Unified Court System, “NY Judiciary Launches Nation’s First Statewide Human Trafficking

Intervention Initiative,” press release, September 25, 2013.

Ohio State Bar Association, Human Trafficking Exists in Every Ohio Zip Code, July 8, 2013.

Franklin County Municipal Court, 2013 Annual Report, February 28, 2014, p. 8.

Susan Tebben, “Human Trafficking, Prostitution Very Real in Ohio, Including Athens County,” Athens Ohio Today,

January 26, 2014.

Sarah Schweig, Danielle Malangone, and Miriam Goodman, Prostitution Diversion Programs, Center for Court

Innovation, 2012.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

financial, and other life opportunities. As such, some researchers, advocates, and policy makers

have considered options that may vacate70 and/or expunge71 these convictions.72

In 2010 New York was the first state to enact legislation that affords trafficking victims the ability

to seek to vacate convictions of prostitution and related offenses.73 A victim may seek such a

vacatur if his or her “participation in the offense was a result of having been a victim of sex

trafficking” as defined by New York statute or by the federal TVPA.74 Indeed, some have

advocated that states adopt policies that not only vacate victims’ convictions for prostitution (and

other nonviolent related offenses) but also expunge victims’ records.75

While these suggestions regarding vacating convictions and expunging records of trafficking

victims have not been targeted specifically toward minor victims, states may consider options

appropriate for this juvenile population. As states vary in their laws regarding prostitution and

trafficking, as well as in their rules for vacating and expunging convictions generally, so too may

their approaches to handling these issues for trafficking victims. As such, if the federal

government chooses to influence states’ treatment of trafficking victims in the criminal and

juvenile justice systems, policy makers may consider incentives that are applicable across the

states.

Federal Incentives to States

As noted, because federal law considers juveniles involved in prostitution as victims of

trafficking, and because much of the policing to combat prostitution and sex trafficking—both of

adults and children—happens at the state level, federal policy makers have considered how to

influence states’ treatment of trafficking victims (particularly minors) such that state policies are

more in line with those of the federal government. Often, federal incentives to states are

implemented through the provision or withholding of grant funding. With respect to the treatment

of juvenile sex trafficking victims, policy makers may be particularly interested in those programs

wherein funds may be used to enhance state and local law enforcement awareness and treatment

of sex trafficking victims.76

The notion of vacating a conviction is a reversal of the conviction, making it null and void.

For this discussion, the concept of expunging records relates to clearing the record of criminal proceedings in a given

case (and often sealing them from inclusion in state or federal repositories). The specific details and rules of

expungement vary by jurisdiction.

See, for instance, Polaris Project, 2013 Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws: Vacating Convictions for Sex

Trafficking Victims, August 2013. See also Melissa Broudo and Sienna Baskin, Vacating Criminal Convictions for

Trafficked Persons: A Legal Memorandum for Advocates and Legislators, Sex Workers Project, Urban Justice Center,

April 2012.

New York Criminal Procedure Law §440.10(1)(i) Motion to vacate judgment.

Ibid.

See, for instance, Polaris Project, 2013 Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws: Vacating Convictions for Sex

Trafficking Victims, August 2013. A number of states such as Vermont and New Jersey have enacted laws addressing

both vacating convictions and expunging records.

A number of policy options involve identifying, protecting, and serving youth who are at-risk for, or who have been

victims of, sex trafficking. However, a discussion of these options—such as those involving social services for

victims—is beyond the scope of this report.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Notably, policy makers may debate a range of options aimed at identifying juveniles involved in

commercial sex and treating them as victims. However, a central element of the current policy

discussion has surrounded potential means to incentivize states’ implementation of policies that

are in line with the federal conceptualization of juveniles involved in commercial sex as victims.

As such, this section solely focuses on possible federal incentives to states, particularly to support

law enforcement’s treatment of these trafficked youth.

TVPA Authorized Grants for Law Enforcement

The TVPA, as amended, has authorized a number of criminal justice-focused grants that may help

law enforcement identify and assist minor victims of sex trafficking as well as prosecute

trafficking cases. Some of these programs are focused specifically on combating the sex

trafficking of minors while others have a broader scope. Notably, the TVPA has authorized a

broad spectrum of programs to support trafficking investigations and victim services; however,

the programs outlined below are only those with a law enforcement nexus and, more specifically,

which could be used to combat sex trafficking of minors within the United States.77 Only one law

enforcement-centered program—the Department of Justice Grants for Victim Services—has

received funding, and it is generally not targeted to serve child victims of sex trafficking.

Authorized and Appropriated

•

DOJ Grants for Victim Services.78 Through this program, DOJ may award

grants to states, Indian tribes, local governments, and nonprofit,

nongovernmental victims’ services organizations to develop, expand, or

strengthen service programs for victims of trafficking in the United States. In

FY2014, this program received $14.3 million in appropriations.79 Reportedly in

FY2009, the DOJ Grants for Victim Services used funding specifically to serve

U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident (LPR) minor victims of trafficking.80

Authorized but not Appropriated

•

DOJ: Grants to State and Local Law Enforcement for Anti-trafficking

Programs.81 DOJ may award grants to state and local law enforcement for

programs to (1) investigate and prosecute severe forms of trafficking, and related

offenses that occur, in whole or in part, within the United States; (2) train law

enforcement personnel in identifying victims of severe forms of trafficking; (3)

investigate and prosecute those who engage in the purchase of commercial sex

and prioritize the investigations and prosecutions of cases involving minor

victims; (4) educate those individuals who have been convicted of these and

For an overview of all programs authorized by the TVPA, see CRS Report R41878, Sex Trafficking of Children in

the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name r

edacted).

P.L. 106-386; 22 U.S.C. §7105(b)(2)(A).

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6).

Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 2013 OVC Report to the Nation: Fiscal Years 2011—2012.

P.L. 109-164, §204; 42 U.S.C. §14044c.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

related offenses; and (5) train law enforcement to work specifically with

trafficking victims.

•

DOJ: Grants for Law Enforcement Training Programs.82 DOJ may award

grants to state and local governments to assist law enforcement in identifying and

protecting victims of trafficking. Funds may be used to train prosecutors to

identify, investigate, or prosecute trafficking as well as to utilize and develop

laws to prohibit trafficking.

•

DOJ and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Assistance for

U.S. Citizens and LPRs.83 DOJ and HHS (in consultation with the Department

of Labor) are to establish a grant program to assist U.S. citizens and LPRs who

are victims of severe forms of trafficking. DOJ and HHS are to consult with

nongovernmental organizations that provide victims services to determine the

assistance that would be most beneficial to victims. The program is to facilitate

communication and coordination between assistance providers, provide a means

to identify such providers, and provide a means to make referrals to programs for

which victims are already eligible. DOJ and HHS may award grants to states,

Indian tribes, local governments, and nonprofit, nongovernmental victims’

services organizations.

•

DOJ and HHS: Grant Program for Certain Persons Subject to Trafficking.84

DOJ, in consultation with HHS, may make block grants to four entities located in

different regions of the United States to combat sex trafficking of children. These

entities refer to state or local units of government that have significant criminal

activity involving sex trafficking of minors; have demonstrated cooperation

between federal, state, local, and where applicable, other stakeholders, in

addressing sex trafficking of minors; and have developed a workable, multidisciplinary plan to combat sex trafficking of minors. The grants may be used to

provide residential care, social services, clothing and other daily necessities, case

management, and legal services, among other supports.

Juvenile Justice Grants85

Although the federal government does not directly administer juvenile justice systems, it funds a

number of grant programs that assist (and influence) states’ juvenile justice programs. The Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the juvenile justice grant

programs.

One of the primary vehicles through which grant funding has been allocated to states is the

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).86 Over the years, and under the

P.L. 109-162 §111; 42 U.S.C. §14044f.

P.L. 110-457, §107; 22 U.S.C. §7105(f).

P.L. 113-4; 42 U.S.C. §14044a.

For more information on federal juvenile justice grant programs, see CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice:

Legislative History and Current Legislative Issues, by (name redacted) and CRS Report RS22655,Juvenile Justice

Funding Trends, by (name redacted).

The JJDPA was first enacted in 1974 (P.L. 90-415) and most recently reauthorized in 2002. While authorization for

its main provisions expired in FY2007 and FY2008, some of the grant programs have continued to receive annual

appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

umbrella of the JJDPA, Congress has funded a number of formula and competitive grants to states

for a variety of purpose areas. Until FY2014, Congress also funded juvenile justice grants through

the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program.87

In an attempt to divert trafficking victims out of juvenile justice systems, some policy makers

may look to the purpose areas of existing juvenile justice grant programs. Some may consider

whether purpose areas may be modified or expanded to help reduce the juvenile justice contact of

minor victims of sex trafficking.

JJDPA State Formula Grants

One of the primary grant programs under the purview of the JJDPA is the State Formula Grants

program. States may use money from this program for a variety of purpose areas including the

planning, establishment, operation, coordination, and evaluation of projects for the development

of more effective juvenile delinquency programs and improved juvenile justice systems. Notably,

within the wide range of purpose areas, there are a number of relevant purpose areas relevant to

steering trafficked youth away from the juvenile justice systems. Specifically, grant money can be

allocated toward community-based alternatives to incarceration, treatment for juvenile offenders

who have been the victims of child abuse or neglect, mentoring programs for at-risk or offender

youth, and mental health services.

In order to receive its share of the formula grant funding, each state must adhere to four core

mandates.88 Policy makers may examine the existing set of core mandates and question whether

this may be one vehicle for influencing states’ behavior regarding the criminalization of minors

involved in commercial sexual activity.

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program89

From FY1998 through FY2013, the JABG program provided grants to states and units of local

government to strengthen their juvenile justice systems and foster accountability within their

juvenile populations. The program focused resources on holding juveniles accountable for their

actions and building up the juvenile justice system in the states.90 Among the 17 purpose areas for

which grant funding could be used, a number related to diverting youth away from the traditional

juvenile justice systems and providing needed services. Specifically, these included establishing

The JABG program, while originally created by the FY1998 DOJ Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-119), was codified

by the 21st Century Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Its authorization expired in FY2009,

though it received annual appropriations through FY2013.

Failure to adhere to these requirements results in a 20% reduction of funding for each mandate with which the state is

not in compliance. The first core mandate with which states must comply is that juveniles charged with or who have

committed a status offense (one that would not be a crime if committed by an adult) may not be placed in secure

detention or secure correctional facilities. The second mandate is that juveniles may not be detained or confined in any

institution in which they would have contact with adult inmates. The third mandate is that juveniles are not to be

detained or confined in any jail or lockup for adults, except for juveniles who are accused of non-status offenses. The

fourth mandate is that states must show that they are implementing juvenile delinquency prevention programs designed

to reduce the disproportionate number of minorities confined within their juvenile justice systems.

42 U.S.C. §3796ee.

Indeed, the only core mandate the program required was that states implement a system of graduated sanctions in

order to be eligible for funding.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

juvenile drug and gun courts as well as establishing risk assessment, early intervention programs,

and comprehensive services for juvenile offenders.

•

JABG funds have been used to support diversion courts serving specific

populations; in 2005, the Hawaii Girls Court received JABG funding to hire

specialized staff to help develop and enhance the program.

Criminal Justice Grants: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice

Assistance Grant (JAG) Program91

Since the late 1980s, Congress has established a number of grant programs, including the JAG

program and its predecessors, to help state and local law enforcement in their crime control

efforts. Currently, JAG funds can be used for “additional personnel, equipment, supplies,

contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice”

for purpose areas including prosecution and court programs, corrections and community

corrections programs, and crime victim and witness programs, among others.92 Grants are made

to states and units of local government. While these funds are generally targeted toward

traditional (adult) criminal justice systems, nothing in the authorizing language prohibits states

and local governments from using their funds to serve individuals under the age of 18.

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Programs93

VAWA primarily addresses certain types of violent crime (namely intimate partner violence,

dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking) through grant programs to state, local, and tribal

governments; nonprofit organizations; and universities.94 Through the most recent VAWA

reauthorization (P.L. 113-4), Congress clarified that victim services and legal assistance

(authorized by VAWA) include services and assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating

violence, sexual assault, or stalking who are also victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons

(as defined under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000). While this did not specifically

add services to trafficking victims to the purpose areas of all VAWA programs, it clarified that

services can be provided to certain victims populations who are also trafficking victims. This

reauthorization also amended several VAWA grant programs to specifically add to their allowable

activities serving victims of trafficking. As such, these grants may be used to enhance the

criminal and juvenile justice response to child victims of sex trafficking.

•

The Creating Hope Through Outreach, Options, Services, and Education for

Children and Youth (CHOOSE Children & Youth) program was established

under P.L. 113-4 in order to enhance the safety of youth and children who are

For more information on this program, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant

(JAG) Program, by (name redacted).

42 U.S.C. §3751(a).

For more information on VAWA programs and grants, see CRS Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act:

Overview, Legislation, and Federal Funding, by (name redacted). Information in this section was taken from this CRS

report.

VAWA was first enacted through P.L. 103-322 and was most recently reauthorized through P.L. 113-4.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

victims of or exposed to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,

stalking, or sex trafficking, and to prevent future violence.95

•

P.L. 113-4 expanded the purpose areas of the Grants to Indian Tribal

Governments Program96 to serve victims of trafficking. The program aims to,

among other things, assist tribal governments in developing and enhancing

effective plans to respond to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,

sex trafficking, and stalking. Purpose areas include improving services for

victims; strengthening tribal criminal justice systems; creating community

education and prevention campaigns; addressing the needs of children who

witness domestic violence; providing supervised visitation and safe exchange

programs; and providing transitional housing assistance and legal assistance.

•

P.L. 113-4 also expanded the purpose areas of the Tribal Domestic Violence and

Sexual Assault Coalitions Grant Program97 to serve victims of trafficking, in

addition to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and

stalking. This grant program aims to increase awareness of domestic violence and

sexual assault against American Indian and Alaska Native women; enhance the

response to violence against women at the tribal, federal, and state levels;

identify and provide technical assistance to tribal coalition membership and tribal

communities to enhance access to essential services; and develop and promote

state, local, and tribal legislation and policies that enhance best practices for

responding to violent crimes against Indian women.

Compensation: Crime Victims Fund98

The Crime Victims Fund (CVF) was established by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA, P.L. 98473) to provide funding for state victim compensation and assistance programs. Since its

enactment, VOCA has been amended several times to support additional victim-related activities

including (1) discretionary grants for private organizations, (2) the Federal Victim Notification

System, (3) funding for victim assistance staff within the Federal Bureau of Investigation and

Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, (4) funding for the Children’s Justice Act Program, and (5)

assistance and compensation for victims of terrorism.

Thus far, CVF money has not been used to fund grant programs outside of those authorized by

VOCA. The Administration’s FY2015 budget included a proposal to raise the CVF cap and

specified that the additional money should be used to fund two initiatives—one being victims of

trafficking grants “focused on providing services to domestic victims of human trafficking.”99

Policy makers may question whether they want to expand the uses of the CVF to support victimcentered grant programs outside of those authorized by VOCA.

42 U.S.C. §14043c.

42 U.S.C. §3796gg–10.

42 U.S.C. §3796gg(d).

Information in this section is from CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of

Crime, by (name redacted).

U.S. Department of Justice, FY2015 Performance Budget, Office of Justice Programs, p. 39.

Congressional Research Service

Juvenile Victims of Domestic Sex Trafficking: Juvenile Justice Issues

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Domestic Security

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.