U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

[CSEC] comprises sexual abuse by

the adult and remuneration in cash 

or kind to the child or a third person 

or persons. The child is treated as a 

sexual object and as a commercial 

object. The commercial sexual exploitation of children constitutes a form 

of coercion and violence against children, and amounts to forced labour 

and a contemporary form of slavery.

TVPA (Public Law 106–386) is considered 

to be the seminal piece of U.S. legislation in the fight against CSEC. As the first 

comprehensive law to combat human 

trafficking, TVPA criminalizes human trafficking on a federal level. Section 112 of 

TVPA states that sex trafficking of children 

involves a commercial sex act in which 

the victim is younger than 18 years old. 

Traffickers who exploit children younger 

than age 14 for the purposes of a commercial sex act can be sentenced to up to 

life in prison (18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1)).1

 If 

the victim is between 14 and 18 years old, 

the trafficker is eligible for as much as 20 

years in prison under TVPA (18 U.S.C. § 

1591(b)(2)); subsequent federal legislation 

has increased this penalty to life imprisonment (pursuant to the Adam Walsh Act of 

2006).2

Effects of Federal Legislation 

on the Commercial Sexual 

Exploitation of Children

William Adams, Colleen Owens, and Kevonne Small

In the United States, estimates suggest that 

as many as 300,000 children may become 

victims of commercial sexual exploitation 

each year (Estes and Weiner, 2001). This 

bulletin describes the findings of a study 

that the Urban Institute conducted to examine the effects of the passage of the Victims 

of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 

of 2000 (TVPA) on the federal prosecution of commercial sexual exploitation of 

children (CSEC) cases. It discusses U.S. 

enforcement of TVPA and succeeding laws 

enacted to strengthen penalties against 

CSEC, describes features of successful prosecutions, and examines how the 

legislation has affected court penalties and 

service providers. The authors also discuss 

recommendations for policymakers and 

practitioners who work with children and 

youth who have been the victims of commercial sexual exploitation.

Background

The 1996 Declaration and Agenda for 

Action for the First World Congress 

Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children provided the first working 

definition of the commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth: 

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator July 2010

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods	 www.ojp.usdoj.gov

A Message From OJJDP

Each year, as many as 300,000 

children become victims of commercial sexual exploitation in the United 

States. Such victimization can have 

devastating effects on a child’s physical and mental health and well-being.

In an effort to stop the commercial 

sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), 

Congress enacted the Victims of 

Trafficking and Violence Prevention 

Act (TVPA) in 2000. As the seminal 

legislation in America’s efforts to end 

CSEC, the Act criminalizes human 

trafficking on a federal level. 

This bulletin describes the results of 

a study funded by OJJDP to examine 

TVPA’s impact on the prosecution of 

CSEC cases. The authors draw on 

CSEC cases processed in federal 

courts between 1998 and 2005 to 

take a look at how current laws addressing CSEC are enforced, indicate 

key features of successful CSEC 

prosecutions, and describe how 

legislation has affected sentences 

imposed on CSEC perpetrators, as 

well as legislation’s effects on the 

provision of services to victims. The 

bulletin concludes with a discussion 

of how the juvenile justice community 

and policymakers could improve the 

prosecution of CSEC crimes.

The information provided in these 

pages should inform our efforts to 

develop policies and practices to 

combat CSEC more effectively. To 

this end, the authors call for comprehensive data collection at the state 

level, increased training opportunities, 

and more consistent definitions of this 

heinous crime. 
2

Several events following TVPA’s passage 

also helped combat CSEC. In 2003, Congress passed the Prosecutorial Remedies 

and Other Tools to End the Exploitation 

of Children Today (PROTECT) Act (Public 

Law 108–21) to help the government fight 

child sexual exploitation. The PROTECT 

Act expanded territorial jurisdiction so 

that Americans abroad who commit CSEC 

may be prosecuted. It also increased 

maximum incarceration sentences from 15 

to 30 years for U.S. citizens or permanent 

residents convicted of child sex tourism 

and for persons convicted of transporting 

a minor in interstate or foreign commerce 

with the intent that the minor engage in 

prostitution or other commercial sex acts 

(PROTECT Act, Public Law 108–21; Shared 

Hope International et al., 2006; Fraley, 

2005). Additionally, since its launch in 

2003, the FBI’s Innocence Lost National 

Initiative has become the largest U.S. 

government initiative against child sex 

trafficking. The Innocence Lost Initiative 

operates task forces and working groups 

in 28 U.S. cities.3

 As a part of the initiative, the National Center for Missing & 

Exploited Children (NCMEC) and U.S. 

Attorneys’ offices involved in the task 

forces or working groups train local and 

federal law enforcement and social service 

providers on multidisciplinary approaches 

to addressing the prostitution of children 

in the United States.

The Urban Institute’s 

Study

To assess the impact of TVPA on the prosecution of CSEC cases in the United States, 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) commissioned 

the Urban Institute to conduct a study to 

answer four research questions:

◆ Is the United States enforcing existing 

federal laws against CSEC?

◆ What are key features of successful 

CSEC prosecutions? What factors predict convictions in cases? What factors 

predict sentence length?

◆ Have U.S. courts increased penalties associated with commercial sexual crimes 

against children?

◆ What are the effects of CSEC legislation 

on service providers who work with 

these victims?

The Urban Institute partnered with the 

Polaris Project4

 to carry out this research.5

Research Methods 

The Urban Institute researchers used a 

variety of methods to answer the four research questions and provide guidance for 

policy and practice. Their methods included a literature review, interviews with four 

federal prosecutors, a focus group with 

eight Washington, DC-area CSEC service 

providers and advocates, and statistical 

analyses of federal CSEC cases filed by U.S. 

Attorneys from 1998 through 2005.

Literature review. The researchers 

examined past publications on CSEC and 

published definitions of CSEC. In addition, 

researchers examined:

◆ Past international actions concerning 

CSEC.

◆ United Nations actions concerning 

CSEC. 

◆ Major conventions and meetings on 

CSEC. 

◆ U.S. legislation on CSEC.

◆ Governmental and nongovernmental 

organization actions related to CSEC.

Interviews with prosecutors. The researchers conducted 1-hour interviews with 

four federal prosecutors who worked on 

CSEC cases. Researchers asked about the 

prosecutors’ experience, collaborations, 

data collection methods, decisionmaking 

processes, and the definitions of CSEC 

they used in daily practice.

Practitioner meeting. The Urban Institute 

hosted a half-day practitioner meeting in 

June 2007 for eight CSEC service providers 

and advocates. These experts discussed issues related to the Urban Institute’s study 

and answered the following questions:

◆ Was information missing in the literature review?

◆ Did any information in the literature 

review need clarification?

◆ How could findings from the statistical 

analysis inform practice?

◆ What practical lessons did the data 

provide?

◆ How could the data generate future 

research?

Statistical analysis. The secondary analysis of federal CSEC defendants relied on 

data obtained from the Federal Justice 

Statistics Resource Center (FJSRC), a project that the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

sponsors and the Urban Institute operates. 

The researchers used the FJSRC database 

to examine the prevalence and characteristics of CSEC offenses and offenders in 

the federal criminal justice system. This 

included criminal suspects investigated 

by U.S. Attorneys, persons arrested by 

federal law enforcement, defendants 

prosecuted and adjudicated in U.S. district 

courts, and offenders who had been sentenced and imprisoned.

The Urban Institute downloaded the 

following datasets from the FJSRC Web 

site (http://fjsrc.urban.org):

◆ U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), Arrests 

for Federal offenses, annual file, FY1998–

2005.

◆ Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

(EOUSA), Suspects in criminal matters 

opened, annual file, FY1997–2005.

◆ EOUSA, Suspects in criminal matters 

concluded, annual file, FY1997–2005.

◆ Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC), Defendants in criminal cases 

filed, annual file, FY1998–2005.

◆ AOUSC, Defendants in criminal cases 

terminated, annual file, FY1998–2005.

◆ U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), 

Defendants sentenced, annual file, 

FY1998–2005.

The Urban Institute examined all stages 

of case processing for defendants’ cases 

filed in U.S. district courts from 1998 to 

2005. To identify CSEC defendants in the 

FJSRC database, the Institute relied on the 
3

appropriate criminal statutes in the United 

States Code, mainly those from chapter 110 (“Sexual Exploitation and Other 

Abuses of Children”) of Title 18.6

 The 

researchers used these data to measure 

and assess trends in federal prosecution 

of CSEC offenders. FJSRC data factored 

prominently in answering the study’s key 

questions.

Research Findings

Findings From the 

Literature Review

Analysis of the literature revealed that 

CSEC remains a major focus of the criminal 

justice community. Key findings include:

◆ The Declaration and Agenda for Action 

for the First World Congress Against 

the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of 

Children created a widespread, formal 

definition of CSEC in 1996.

◆ Each year in the United States, as many 

as 300,000 children are at risk for sexual 

exploitation (Estes and Weiner, 2001).

◆ The average age a child first falls victim 

to CSEC is 13 or 14 (Barnitz, 2001; Friedman, 2005).

◆ Victims are becoming younger, largely 

because exploiters are concerned 

about victims having HIV or AIDS 

(Friedman, 2005; Spangenberg, 2001; 

Barnitz, 2001).

◆ Victims cite the presence of existing 

adult prostitution markets and their or 

their family members’ drug dependency 

as leading factors contributing to their 

involvement in CSEC in the United 

States (Estes and Weiner, 2001).

◆ Few CSEC studies focus on perpetrators 

(Barnitz, 2001; Estes and Weiner, 2001; 

Andrews, 2004; Gragg et al., 2007; Song, 

2007).

◆ The majority of child sexual exploiters 

are men between the ages of 20 and 65 

(Barnitz, 2001; Estes and Weiner, 2001).

◆ Prior to the passage of TVPA (2000) and 

the PROTECT Act (2003), prosecutors 

addressed crimes involving CSEC by 

using the Mann Act of 1910 (18 U.S.C. 

§ § 2421–2424) and the Violent Crime 

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 

1994 (Katyal, 1993). However, TVPA is 

considered the seminal piece of U.S. 

legislation on CSEC.

A History of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of 

Children Legislation in the United States 

Before passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 

(TVPA), prosecutors primarily used the Mann Act of 1910 (18 U.S.C. § § 2421–

2424) and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known 

as the Crime Bill) to address crimes involving the commercial sexual exploitation of 

children.

The Mann Act, commonly called the White Slave Traffic Act, was enacted in 1910 

to fi ght against forced prostitution as required by the Thirteenth Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution (Katyal, 1993). However, the Act did not explicitly protect minors 

from slavery-like practices until it was amended in 1978 and again in 1986 and 

1994. As currently written, the Mann Act 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 offense” (18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424). Currently, the FBI 

investigates possible Mann Act violations and refers them directly to U.S. Attorneys. 

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section supervises the prosecution of these cases (United States Attorneys Manual, 1997). 

The Mann Act was not originally intended to prosecute cases of child sex trafficking 

or general sex trafficking, but it has been, and still is, used to do so. Rather, TVPA 

was the fi rst comprehensive law intended to combat human trafficking. It criminalized human trafficking in the United States and focused efforts on prevention, protection, and prosecution. Unlike the Mann Act, TVPA does not require transportation 

across state lines to prove human trafficking. 

In addition to actions prosecuted through TVPA, the 1994 Crime Bill includes a provision, known as the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act, which states that traveling outside of the United States with the intent of engaging in sexual activity with a 

minor is a crime. This provision represented a signifi cant step toward fi ghting child 

sex tourism, but few cases have been prosecuted using this law (Andrews, 2004). 

As a result, the Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002 was passed to 

address these concerns. Perhaps most signifi cantly, the 2002 Act removed the 

intent requirement and criminalized the actions of sex tour operators (Fraley, 2005). 

These acts help provide the basis for CSEC arrests and prosecution. 

For more comprehensive information on the federal laws used to prosecute CSEC, 

see the Urban Institute’s full research report: An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted 

CSEC Cases since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/222023.pdf.
4

offered services (see section 4.1.4 in the 

full report).

Answers to Key Questions

Researchers analyzed statistical data from 

the FJSRC Web site to answer the study’s 

key questions (p. 2). These data were 

placed in context with information gathered from the literature review, prosecutor interviews, and practitioner meeting to 

provide the following answers. 

1. Is the United States enforcing existing 

federal laws against CSEC?

Although legislation existed before 2000 

to address criminal acts associated with 

CSEC, specific federal laws such as TVPA 

(2000) and the PROTECT Act (2003) were 

passed to address this crime. At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Justice 

is using these laws. 

The numbers of CSEC investigations, 

case filings, convictions, and sentences 

to prison have increased each year since 

these laws were passed (see figure 1). The 

average number of case filings increased 

the most in the following federal judicial 

districts: the eastern and central districts 

of California, the Utah district, the northern district of Ohio, the northern district 

of Georgia, and the southern district of 

New York (see figure 2). 

◆ Several major initiatives in 2003—the 

passage of the PROTECT Act, the 

reauthorization of TVPA, the start of 

the Innocence Lost National Initiative, 

and the “Breaking the Silence” national 

summit—successfully enhanced CSEC 

prosecution.

Highlights From 

Prosecutor Interviews

Interviews with federal prosecutors highlighted several key issues in the field that 

needed improvement.

Definitions of CSEC. Prosecutors used 

different definitions of what constitutes 

CSEC. For example, many felt that CSEC 

involved U.S. citizen victims, whereas 

human trafficking involved foreign national victims. These differing definitions 

affected which legislation they thought 

pertained to CSEC-related crimes.

Task forces. Task forces need further development, particularly at the local level.

Prosecution. Prosecutors disagreed as 

to whether certain cases should be processed at the state or federal level. In addition, researchers learned that prosecutors 

preferred to plea bargain rather than bring 

cases to court.

Data collection. Prosecutors need to 

improve their methods of collecting data 

on CSEC. Currently, their agencies do not 

prioritize data collection, and they have 

no automated systems for this purpose. 

Prosecutor interviews helped researchers 

develop advice on policy and practice (see 

sidebars “Recommendations for Practice” 

and “Recommendations for Policy”).

Findings From the 

Practitioner Meeting

Researchers convened a focus group 

meeting attended by CSEC service providers and advocates to elicit feedback on 

preliminary research findings and to identify issues that had not been addressed 

previously. Practitioners identified a number of key issues and discussion points 

and made recommendations for policy 

and practice (see sidebars “Recommendations for Practice” and “Recommendations 

for Policy”):7

◆ Current federal CSEC data do not represent the full range of CSEC offenders. 

Practitioners had concerns about the 

types of CSEC cases included in federal 

data sources and suggested that state 

data might better represent the full 

spectrum of CSEC cases being investigated nationally. Data collection efforts, 

particularly at the state level, need 

improvement (see section 4.1.1 in the 

full report).

◆ Children can become overwhelmed as 

witnesses. The investigation process 

can make CSEC victims feel criminalized, making them reluctant to testify. 

Preparing a child to participate in 

prosecution should be only one of 

several methods of handling this type 

of criminal case. Prosecutors should 

also focus on other types of corroborating evidence that can substantiate a 

victim’s claim (see section 4.1.2 in the 

full report). 

◆ Language used to discuss CSEC affects 

how victims are characterized. For 

example, U.S. child victims may be 

referred to as “prostitutes” and foreign 

national child victims may be referred 

to as “sex trafficking victims.” This language difference creates a dichotomy 

between these two groups of victims. 

Other considerations include confusion 

over the terms “pimp,” “commercial,” 

and “sex trafficker” (see section 4.1.3 in 

the full report).

◆ U.S. citizen and foreign national CSEC 

victims are treated differently when 

they are identified, characterized, and 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Suspects in matters investigated

Defendants convicted

Defendants in cases filed

Defendants sentenced to prison

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Number of Suspects/Defendants

Year

Passage of

TVPA

Passage of the

PROTECT Act

Figure 1: Case-Processing Trends for Federal CSEC Cases, 1998–2005 

Note: CSEC investigations at the federal level have increased since the Victims of Trafficking and 

Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End 

the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act were passed.
5

Although the number of suspects in criminal CSEC matters that the federal government investigated and referred to U.S. 

Attorneys increased substantially each 

year between 1998 and 2005, federal prosecutors declined to prosecute more than 

half of those criminal matters each year 

in U.S. district courts. Federal prosecution was most frequently denied because 

the case was referred to other authorities (e.g., the states), there was weak or 

insufficient evidence for prosecution, or 

no federal offense was evident.8

 Nonetheless, prosecutors brought a fairly steady 

proportion of CSEC cases (usually 40 to 45 

percent) to federal court, despite a caseload that more than doubled in volume 

between 1998 and 2005. Therefore, the 

number of defendants in CSEC cases filed 

in U.S. district courts more than tripled 

between 1998 and 2005 (from 412 to 1,512 

cases).

CSEC investigations at the federal level 

have increased since TVPA and the 

PROTECT Act were passed. From 1998 

to 2005, the number of CSEC suspects in 

criminal cases that U.S. Attorneys investigated and concluded more than doubled 

(see figure 3). Increases in the number of 

child pornography suspects accounted 

for most of this growth. The number of 

suspects investigated for child prostitution 

or sex trafficking experienced the greatest proportional growth during this time 

period, nearly tripling. 

These increases in case investigations 

occurred mostly after 2003, when efforts 

converged (i.e., legislation, creation of 

task forces)9

 to bring greater awareness 

to CSEC and to prosecute its perpetrators 

by using a collaborative, victim-centered 

approach (Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Protection, 2002). 

To assess the impact of federal legislation 

(e.g., TVPA) and federal initiatives on the 

prosecution of CSEC cases over time, the 

Urban Institute constructed a time series 

regression model.10 This model used 

monthly data on the number of federal 

CSEC prosecutions from 1998 to 2005 and 

measured the effect of several occurrences:

◆ TVPA—enacted in 2000.

◆ The 9/11 terrorist attacks.

◆ The PROTECT Act, Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act, and 

the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative—enacted in 2003.

The model showed a statistically significant effect of the 2003 initiatives on the 

number of CSEC prosecutions brought to 

Change in mean number of cases

-5 to 1 1 to 7 8 to 17 18 to 33

Utah (20)

Eastern District of 

California (33)

Central District 

of California (21)

Northern 

District 

of Ohio 

(18)

Southern 

District 

of N.Y. 

(19)

Northern 

District 

of Georgia 

(18)

Figure 2: Change in the Number of Defendants in Cases Filed in U.S. 

District Court Charged With a CSEC Offense, 1998–2005, 

After Implementation of TVPA 

Note: Districts not shown on map include the District of Columbia (5), district of Guam (1), 

district of the Northern Mariana Islands (0.2), district of Puerto Rico (7), and district of the 

U.S. Virgin Islands (0.6).

Source: Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

criminal master files, annual, 1998–2005.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Number of Suspects

1998 2000 2002 2004

Fiscal Year

Sexual exploitation

of children

Child pornography Child prostitution/

sex trafficking

Figure 3: Suspects Investigated in Federal Criminal Matters

Note: Between 1998 and 2005, the number of suspects investigated in federal criminal matters 

related to commercial sexual exploitation crimes against children more than doubled.
6

more likely to result in conviction than 

cases that the FBI investigated. 

◆ Case processing time. Cases with longer processing times were more likely to 

end in conviction.

◆ Presence of codefendants. Cases 

with one defendant had greater conviction rates than cases with multiple 

defendants.

◆ Type of CSEC charge. Offenders 

charged with possessing or distributing child pornography were more likely 

to be convicted than those charged 

with child prostitution or child sexual 

exploitation.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan.

1998

Jan.

1999

Jan.

2000

Jan.

2001

Jan.

2002

Jan.

2003

Jan.

2004

Jan.

2005

Number of defendant cases filed Predicted value without 2003 changes Predicted value (line of best-fit)

Number of CSEC Defendant Cases Filed

TVPA

passed

(2000) 9/11

2003

Initiatives*

Year

Figure 4: Time Series Regression Model Measuring the Impact of Federal Initiatives on CSEC Prosecutions 

in U.S. District Courts

* Federal efforts implemented in early 2003 include the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 

and the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act.

federal court, and the other two occurrences had no statistically significant 

effect on the number of CSEC prosecutions 

brought to court (see figure 4). The fact 

that enacting TVPA in 2000 was not statistically significant does not mean that the 

Act was ineffective; it took a few years for 

this legislation to take effect and for federally funded task forces to form and come 

into operation throughout the United 

States. These task forces consisted of 

federal, state, and local law enforcement; 

victim service providers; and prosecutors 

who worked together and shared information that helped identify CSEC victims and 

prosecute offenders in their communities.

2. What are key features of successful 

CSEC prosecutions? What factors predict 

convictions in cases? What factors predict sentence length?

Analysis of FJSRC data showed that the following factors are important in predicting 

conviction in a CSEC case: 

◆ When the case was filed. Defendants 

in cases filed after the passage of TVPA 

of 2000 had a greater chance of being 

convicted than defendants in cases 

filed prior to the enactment of TVPA. 

◆ Investigative agency. Cases that the 

U.S. Customs Service investigated were 
7

more difficult time identifying themselves 

as victims. U.S. citizen victims may feel 

“criminalized” by the process of case 

investigation and prosecution and opt to 

drop out of prosecutions.

Conclusion 

Key findings from the Urban Institute’s 

study suggest that current federal CSECfocused legislation is sufficient to address 

these crimes and that task force efforts 

are an important component in successful 

prosecution. 

Although considerable progress has been 

made in CSEC prosecution, more improvements can be made:

◆ Maintain consistent definitions of 

CSEC. Greater consistency will help 

identify victims (both U.S. citizens and 

The following factors helped predict the 

prison term imposed on CSEC offenders: 

◆ Case disposition (plea vs. trial). Offenders who went to trial received longer 

sentences (61 months longer, on average) than those who pled guilty.

◆ Race. Nonwhite offenders received 

longer prison terms (about 16 months 

longer) than white offenders. 

◆ Education. Offenders with lower levels 

of education (high school diploma or 

less) received longer sentences than 

offenders with at least some college 

education. 

◆ Type of CSEC charge. Offenders charged 

with child sexual exploitation received 

longer sentences (47 months longer, on 

average) than those charged with child 

prostitution or child pornography.

◆ Offense seriousness and criminal history. As an offender’s federal guidelines 

scores11 on offense seriousness and 

criminal history increased, so too did 

the average sentence imposed on the 

offender.

3. Have U.S. courts increased penalties associated with commercial sexual 

crimes against children?

Laws associated with CSEC passed since 

2000 have increased the penalties associated 

with CSEC-related offenses. Prosecutors use 

these laws to secure harsher punishments. 

For example, the mean sentence imposed 

on offenders convicted and sentenced 

increased from 53 months in 1999 (before 

TVPA went into effect) to 80 months in 2004 

(see figure 5). 

4. What are the effects of CSEC legislation on service providers who work with 

these victims?

Service providers and advocates reported 

that federal CSEC legislation often focuses 

on foreign or noncitizen victims, leaving 

service gaps and questions about the 

identity of U.S. citizen victims. Providers 

often have difficulty securing social services for U.S. citizen victims because the 

legislation focuses on victims from other 

countries who do not have status in the 

United States. 

The service providers and advocates 

participating in the practitioner meeting12

reported that there is an assumption that 

U.S. citizen CSEC victims have access to 

specialized services simply because of 

their citizenship status but suggested that 

this is not really the case. For example, 

many juvenile victims do not have access 

to secured housing.13 Practitioners also 

suggested that federal CSEC legislation 

shapes the identity of victims. Foreign 

and noncitizen victims may have an easier 

time identifying themselves as victims 

because of how the laws are worded and 

interpreted, but U.S. citizen victims have a 

Recommendations for 

Practice

The authors analyzed the study’s findings and provided several recommendations for practice: 

◆ Federal prosecutors should examine 

the reasons why so many cases are 

declined for federal prosecution and 

determine whether some declined 

cases could be brought forward with 

different policies or better training and 

resources.

◆ Practitioners and prosecutors should 

support task force participation. If 

jurisdictions do not have task forces 

or collaborations, federal and state 

prosecutors, law enforcement, and 

service providers should coordinate 

their efforts to ensure that cases are 

brought to court.

◆ Training opportunities for law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges should 

be uniform nationwide in terms of 

content but also tailored to local 

needs. Training topics should include 

how to define CSEC, how to decide 

whether a CSEC case should be 

tried at the federal or state level, and 

how to conduct an effective CSEC 

investigation.

◆ The U.S. government should clearly 

define CSEC at the federal and state 

levels. It should develop a universal 

definition of CSEC so that charging 

decisions are more uniform.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Child sexual exploitation Child prostitution

Child pornography

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Months

Fiscal Year

All CSEC offenses

Figure 5: Mean Prison Sentence for Commercial Sexual Exploitation of 

Children (CSEC) Offenses, 1998–2004

Note: The mean prison sentence for CSEC offenders increased to 80 months in 2004.
8

olp/pdf/adam_walsh_act.pdf. The William 

Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 also refined 

the language of this section. For full text of 

the legislation, see www.usdoj.gov/olp/pdf/

wilberforce-act.pdf.

2. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other 

Tools to End the Exploitation of Children 

Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 increased 

this penalty to 40 years. Subsequently, the 

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–248) strengthened penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1) 

to life imprisonment (also see endnote 1). 

3. For more information about the Innocence Lost National Initiative, see 

www.fbi.gov/innolost/innolost.htm.

4. The Polaris Project is an international 

organization, based in the United States 

and Japan, committed to combating human trafficking and modern-day slavery.

5. For more detailed and comprehensive 

background information on CSEC, see the 

full research report, An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted CSEC Cases since the Passage 

of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence 

Protection Act of 2000, at www.ncjrs.gov/

pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/222023.pdf.

6. See exhibit 3.1 on p. 14 in the full report 

for the list of the specific statutes that 

were included. This list was informed by 

several interviews conducted with federal 

prosecutors who routinely prosecute 

CSEC cases for the U.S. Department of 

Justice and by advice from the Polaris 

Project.

7. The practitioner focus group made suggestions for future research. See pp. 66–68 

of the full report for more information.

8. See figures 3.4 and 3.5; appendix B; and 

tables 3, 3a, 3b, and 3c in the full report 

for a more detailed description of reasons 

why cases were not prosecuted, as listed 

by CSEC offense. 

9. Legislation addressing CSEC in 2003 included the PROTECT Act and the 2003 reauthorization of TVPA (Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act, 2003). The 

FBI, in collaboration with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and 

the Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, also launched 

the Innocence Lost National Initiative in 

2003, which created national task forces 

to address the domestic sex trafficking of 

children. In addition to legislative efforts, 

anti-human-trafficking and anti-CSEC 

foreign nationals), inform how the legal 

and social services communities can 

help them, and determine how the legal 

system should handle offenders. 

◆ Provide better training. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges who 

handle or encounter CSEC cases should 

receive more training.

◆ Improve data collection. Researchers 

should improve efforts to collect and 

use data to understand what works in 

preventing and combating CSEC and 

what helps to identify victims and prosecute cases.

The findings of this study shed light on 

some important research questions regarding the handling and outcome of CSEC 

cases in the federal system, but many 

questions remain unanswered. Continued 

research on CSEC is needed to create 

more effective guidelines for policy and 

practice. 

In particular, studies should be undertaken to collect state-level data and assess 

the efforts of state and local authorities 

to prosecute CSEC offenders pursuant 

to state laws. This study focused solely 

on the prosecution of CSEC offenders by 

federal authorities, but these efforts constitute only part of the law enforcement 

efforts in the United States to apprehend 

and prosecute CSEC offenders. The efforts 

of state and local law enforcement should 

also be examined. 

For More Information

To find out more about the study described in this bulletin, read the full 

report, An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted 

CSEC Cases since the Passage of the Victims 

of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 

of 2000, at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/

grants/222023.pdf.

Endnotes

1. 18 U.S.C. § 1591(b)(1) was strengthened 

under Section 208 of the Adam Walsh Child 

Protection and Safety Act of 2006. For full 

text of the legislation, see www.usdoj.gov/

Recommendations for Policy

The authors analyzed the study’s findings and provided a number of policy 

recommendations:

◆ Prosecutors use current federal laws against commercial sexual exploitation of 

children (CSEC). Practitioners and prosecutors agree that these laws sufficiently 

address CSEC at the federal level, and additional legislation is not needed.

◆ Congress should continue to fund CSEC-specific initiatives such as task forces 

and the national conference in 2003. Without this coordinated strategy focusing on 

CSEC legislation, CSEC prosecutions probably would not have increased as much.

◆ Task force participation is key to success in prosecuting CSEC perpetrators.

◆ Service providers, advocates, researchers, and policymakers must agree on terms 

used in the CSEC field. This will help identify victims and cases.

◆ Everyone involved in working with CSEC should use language that qualifies U.S. 

citizen CSEC victims as “real” victims (e.g., as sex trafficking victims and not as 

prostitutes) so that the criminal justice process will not make these victims feel 

criminalized and so that they will be more willing to participate in prosecutions.

◆ Victims must have access to specialized services. The U.S. government should 

conduct a review of services provided to U.S. citizen and foreign national CSEC 

victims exploited in the United States to ensure that both populations receive the 

services they need.

◆ Policymakers and practitioners must support and fund data collection efforts at 

the state and local levels. Prosecutors and practitioners see the value in collecting and analyzing data but do not make it a current practice for their agencies and 

organizations. Congress should make reporting data on CSEC incidents, arrests, 

prosecutions, and sentences a requirement. Data on CSEC crime victims also 

should be collected and reported.
9

organizations from across the country 

came together in 2003 to host Breaking the 

Silence, the first national youth summit 

on CSEC (Shared Hope International et al., 

2006). 

10. For an indepth description of this time 

series model and its results, see section 

3.4.1 in the full report.

11. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 

which federal judges were legally required 

to use for determining all federal sentences during the study period, consist primarily of two factors: offense seriousness 

and the offender’s criminal history score 

category (a higher category indicates 

more criminal history). For more information, see the United States Sentencing 

Commission Web site at www.ussc.gov/

guidelin.htm.

12. Service providers who participated in 

the practitioner meeting work primarily 

with victims of sex trafficking.

13. Service providers and advocates 

participating in the practitioner meeting 

reported that during the prosecution of 

a CSEC case, service providers have to 

make sure the children stay in the system 

to testify. Staying in the system entails 

being placed in secure housing for the 

length of the prosecution. For foreign 

national victims, this housing is often a 

shelter with staff trained to deal with this 

special population. However, for domestic 

victims, this often means being placed in 

juvenile detention facilities or foster care 

with limited or no services. If the children 

leave the criminal justice or welfare system, participants reported that it can be 

difficult to find them again and, if found, 

service providers have to rebuild their 

trust and willingness to participate in the 

case process. See chapter 4: Practitioner 

Meeting in the full report (p. 60) for more 

details. 

References 

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act of 2006, Public Law 109–248. 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 

Defendants in Criminal Cases, 1998–2005.

Available from http://fjsrc.urban.org/

datadictionary.cfm. 

Andrews, S. 2004. U.S. domestic prosecution of the American international sex 

tourist: Efforts to protect children from 

sexual exploitation. Journal of Criminal 

Law and Criminology 94(2):415–454.

Barnitz, L. 2001. Effectively responding 

to the commercial sexual exploitation of 

children: A comprehensive approach to 

prevention, protection, and reintegration 

services. Child Welfare 80(5):597–610.

Estes, R., and Weiner, N. 2001. The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children 

in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania 

School of Social Work. Available from

www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC.htm.

First World Congress Against Commercial 

Sexual Exploitation of Children. 1997 (June 

5). 1996 Declaration and Agenda for 

Action. Available from www.hartford-hwp.

com/archives/28/024.html.

Fraley, A. 2005. Child sex tourism legislation under the PROTECT Act: Does it really 

protect? St. John’s Law Review 79:445.

Friedman, S.A. 2005. Who Is There to Help 

Us? How the System Fails Sexually Exploited Girls in the United States: Examples 

From Four American Cities. Brooklyn, NY: 

ECPAT–USA.

Gragg, F., Petta, I., Bernstein, H., Eisen, K., 

and Quinn, L. 2007. New York Prevalence 

Study of Commercially Sexually Exploited 

Children. Rensselaer, NY: New York State 

Office of Children and Family Services.

Katyal, N.K. 1993. Men who own women: A 

Thirteenth Amendment critique of forced 

prostitution. Yale Law Journal 103(3):791–

826.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 2002. Protecting Our Children: 

Working Together To End Child Prostitution. Proceedings of the National Summit, 

December 13–14, 2002, Washington, DC. 

Available from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/

ojjdp/204990.pdf.

Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools 

to End the Exploitation of Children Today 

(PROTECT) Act of 2003, Public Law 

108–21. 

Shared Hope International, ECPAT–USA, 

and The Protection Project of the Foreign 

Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University 

School of Advanced International Studies. 

2006. U.S. Mid-Term Review on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in 

America. Available from www.sharedhope.

org/csecmtrusa/index.asp.

Song, S. 2007. Global Child Sex Tourism: 

Children as Tourist Attractions. Washington, 

DC: Youth Advocate Program International. Available from www.yapi.org/

rpchildsextourism.pdf.

Spangenberg, M. 2001. Prostituted Youth in 

New York City: An Overview. Brooklyn, NY: 

ECPAT–USA.

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, Public Law 108–193, 

117 Stat. 2875–2887. Available from 

www.glin.gov/view.action?glinID=137996.

United States Attorneys Manual, Title 9, 

Criminal Resource Manual 2027. 1997. 

Mann Act. Available from www.usdoj.gov/

usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/

title9/crm02027.htm.
10

United States Code. Title 18. Crimes and 

Criminal Procedure: Part I Crimes. Chapter 

117. Transportation for Illegal Sexual 

Activity and Related Crimes. Sections 

2421–2424 [Mann Act of 1910]. 

Victims of Trafficking and Violence 

Protection Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. § § 7101 

et seq. Public Law 106–386. Available 

from www.state.gov/documents/

organization/10492.pdf.
11

This bulletin was prepared under cooperative 

agreement number 2006–JP–FX–K058 from the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of 

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Community Capacity Development Office; the National Institute of Justice; 

the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office 

of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART).

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint 

it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the 

authors of this bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you 

received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials 

meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions 

to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

301–519–5600 (fax)

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov

Acknowledgments

This bulletin was written by William Adams, M.P.P., Senior Research Associate, 

Urban Institute; Colleen Owens, Research Associate, Urban Institute; and Kevonne 

Small, J.D., Ph.D., Trial Attorney, Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice (and former Research Associate, Urban Institute). 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals: 

Kevin Roland, Research Associate, Urban Institute, who provided assistance with 

dataset preparation and analysis; Barbara Parthasarathy, Research Associate, 

Urban Institute, who prepared maps of U.S. judicial districts displaying the net 

change in the number of CSEC suspects and defendants; Janine Zweig, Ph.D., 

Senior Research Associate, Urban Institute, and Senior Advisor on this project; 

and Terrence Dunworth, Ph.D., Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban 

Institute. Dr. Zweig and Dr. Dunworth both contributed general review and feedback on the content of this bulletin. The authors also acknowledge the contributors 

of the Polaris Project, our research partners, who provided invaluable expertise and 

assistance throughout this study, particularly with organizing and conducting our 

practitioner meeting with CSEC advocates and service providers.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge Jeffrey Gersh, Program Manager at OJJDP, 

whose input and guidance throughout the course of the research led to improvements in the study’s implementation and analyses.
Bulletin NCJ 228631

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

*NCJ~228631*

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91