DETERMINING SOCIAL (IN)JUSTICE: ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND THE COMMER C I AL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN By Shelby Bierwagen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sociology - Master of Arts 2015 ABSTRACT DETERMINING SOCIAL (IN)JUSTICE: ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING AND THE COMMER C I AL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN By Shelby Bierwagen This study focuses on organizations that address the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) and the likelihood of placing an emphasis on CSEC a s important in relation to perceived influences on caseloads and the consistencies/inconsistencies with literature in this area . Statistical modeling using logistic regression, compar isons with the literature, and changeable/non - changeable influences on CSEC based on a small wins o rientation are used to explore this area . The theoretical and conceptual framework is drawn from the CSEC research and the organizational priority setting literature. To study organizations , data from Estes inve stigation into CSEC are a nalyzed, as it draws attention to not only the victims of sexual exploitation but also to the organizations themselves and how they perceive their CSEC caseload . While half of the organizations included in this analysis provide training on CSEC, very few p ossess a working definition of or manual on handling CSEC cases. The significance of providing training is maintained throughout all analyses , though a patte rn cannot be established along theoretical lines with regards to reporting certain variables as inf luencing the number of CSEC cases the organization receives and the likelihood of reporting an emphasis on CSEC. An alternative explanation that focuses on a different aspect of organizational priority setting is proposed that may account for the se findings. Copyright by SHELBY BIERWAGEN 2015 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES v PROBLEM STATEMENT & THEORETICAL APPROACH 1 The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children 1 Organizational Priority Setting 8 METHODS 17 Measures 18 Emphasis on CSEC as i mportant 18 Influence v ariables 19 Preparation v ariables 19 Mediators 20 RESULTS 21 DISCUSSION 25 CONCLUSION 32 APPENDIX 34 REFERENCES 37 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Descriptive Statistic s 21 Ta ble 2. Cross - Tabulation s of Emphasis on CSEC 22 Table 3. Odds Ratios of Emphasis on CSEC on Various Factors from Binary Logistic Regressio n 22 Table 4 . Odds Ratios of Emphasis on CSEC 24 Table 5. Odds Ratios of Emphasis on CSEC on Various Factors from Progressive Adjustment 24 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT & THEORETICAL APPROACH The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Human trafficking tends to be equated with t he commercial sexu al exploitation of children . D iscus sions of this sort overly simplify the breadth of human trafficking . The commercial sexual exploitation of children (hereafter referred to as CSEC) is generally regarded as a broad category of sexual exploitation of minors in which profit can either be monetary or non - monetary and includes the acts of trafficking, prostitution, pornography, and sex tourism (Bolling and Harper 2007; Scarpa 2006), although t he categories of acts included in definitions vary . Commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) is diff erentiated from sexual abuse by the addition of a pecuniary or other eco nomically related exchange . Most definitions of CSEC intentionally differentiate between sex trafficking and prostitution, pornography, and othe r forms of sexual exploitation. While exact definitions may be necessary in terms of prosecution, as a general understanding of what const itutes CSEC, the definition put forth in The Declaration and Agenda for Action f or the World Congress against C ommercial Sexual Exploitation of Children may be more practical as a starting point : The commercial sexual exploitation of children is a fundamental violation of children's rights. It 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 exploit ation of children constitutes a form of coercion and violence against children, and amounts to forced labour and a contem porary form of sla very (Chase and Statham 2004: 24 ) . The primary investigators of the data used in this study define CSEC as an econo mic (monetary or non - monetary) exchange of sexual exploitation of children that includes pornography, prostitution, and trafficking (Estes and Weiner 2001). Due to the conflation of CSEC with human trafficking and the separation in the general CSEC literat ure of trafficking, 2 prostitution, and pornography, the relationship between CSEC and human trafficking needs to be delineated. Included in t he Palermo Protocols ( adopted by the United Nations in 2000 as a supplement to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime ) is the Protocol to Prevent , Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children . Also included are protocols relating to human smuggling and firearms manufacturing. These protocols are considered the international sta ndard s in defining and combating these three types of organized crime. Human trafficking is defined in Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the con sent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation (UNODC 2000). In the United States, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 efforts, both domestically and in foreign efforts. The law is divided into three primary components that address issues of protection, prosecution, and prevention, defining harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex (TVPA 2000). Broadly stated, human trafficking consists of the use of force, fraud, or coercion in the exploitation of individuals. In regards to p rosecution, the act, the means, and the purpose of exploitation must be demonstrated. Sex trafficking ( e.g. commercial sex and sexual tourism) and labor trafficking ( e.g. forced labor and domestic servitude) tend to be the forms of human trafficking that receive the most attention, 3 yet human trafficking also includes, but is not limited to, child soldiers, debt bondage, and traffick ing in organs. CSEC is a type of human tr afficking in that it is a component of sex trafficking. It is not the same as child sex abuse that does not involve commercial exploitation (i.e. profit) and is distinct from trafficking that involves adults. The TVPA (2000) designates all minors subject t o any form of commercial sex activity as victims of a severe form of human trafficking, in that those under the age of eighteen need not be forced, coerced, or fraudulently persuaded into sexual exploitation to be considered victims of sex trafficking o any sex act on account of which anything of value is giv 2000: sec. 103(3)). Thus, a ll CSEC is considered human trafficking due to a) the children are exploited for economic (monetary or n on - monetary) gain, and b) legally, minors cannot consent to sexual acts (which includes , but is not limited to, sex and pornography). Estimates of the rates of CSEC are frequently reported, but their reliability is often questioned. These range from 100,0 00 to three million in the United States alone ( Mitchell , Jones, Finkelhor, and Wolak 2011 ), yet these estimates contain significant limitations, flawed methodologies, and inconsistent definitions ( Melrose , Barnett, and Brodie 1999 ; Weitzer 2014). A legislative standpoint may help to shed some light on the extent of the issue. I nternational legislation and several global conference s pertaining specifically to CSEC or one of its c omponents have been ratified or convened in the recent past, such as The First World Congress on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, the Second World Congress on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international campaign End Child Prostitution in Asia Tourism, and the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which includes the Protocol to Prevent, 4 Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. In the United States, the 2003 and 2005 reautho rizations of the T rafficking V ictims P rotection Act added specific provisions for prosecution of human trafficking cases. The 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act removed the burden of proof from the prosecution of th and efforts have included the Child P ornography Prevention Act , the joint FBI, Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity section, and National Center for Missing an d Exploited Childr en Innocence Lost Initiative , and state - based Safe Harbor laws (laws that decriminalize juvenile prostitution , classify those under eighteen as exploited children, and allow judges to defer prosecution by referring the youth to social ser vices, such as short - term housing or crisis intervention ( Cedeño 2012)) . This v ast legislation, of which only a minute sample has been listed , demonstrates that the commercial sexual exploitation is an accepted social problem at least in political arenas . Little can be done to combat social problems until the causes , intricacies , and factors that dr ive and/ or promote victimization are understood. Literature on the topic has pointed to s everal factors that neglect, excessive arguing, sexual abuse or assault , and risk for victimization has been well established ( Fong and Cardoso 2010; Pe arce , Willi ams, and Galvin 2003; Gree nbaum and Crawford - Jakubiak 2015 ). Runaway, homeless, or thrownaway youth ( Fong and Cardoso 2010; Walker - Rodriquez and Hill 2011; Greenbaum and Crawford - Jakubiak 2015 ) and being female ( Boxill and Richardson 2007; Estes and Weiner 2002 ), particularly with internet - facilitated crimes ( Mitchell, Jones, Finkelhor and Wolak 2011), are also at increased risk. Drug use has 5 been linked to CSEC, although the directionality is debated ( Cobbina and Oselin 2011; C hase and Statham 2005; Reid and Piquero 2014 ). The social sphere of p overty can serve as a demonstration of the interconnectedness of factors that spur CSEC. The link between socioeconomic status, poverty, and CSEC has been well established at both the individual and community - level ( Ch a se and Statham 2005 ; Pearce et al. 2003; Clawson et al. 2009; Estes & Weiner 2005 provide for their basic needs, such as food and shelter ( Melrose et al. 1999; Finkel hor and Ormrod 2004 ), while others attempt t o provide themselves with or maintain a lifestyle that is otherwise unavailable to them ( Taylor - Browne 2002 ). Other children that engage in prostitution come from middle class families , but resort to prostitution when they are living on the streets ( Green e , Ennett, and Ringwalt 1999; Hunnicutt 2001 ), further demonstrating the link between homelessness and CSEC. Areas of high crime, which tend to coincide with poverty, are also seen to have higher levels of CESC ( Greenbaum and Crawford - Jakubiak 2015; Clawson et al. 2009; Estes and Weiner 2005). At the macro - level, several community - level factors have been found to influence the existence of CSEC. Such factors include a large population of transient males, such as military personnel or truckers ( Clawson et a l. 2009; Es tes and Weiner 2005; Moon 1997 ), t he presence of an adult prostitution market ( Clawson et al. 2009; Estes and Weiner 2005; Farley and Kelly 2000; Hofstede 1999 ) , and c ountries with political or social upheaval or police or political corruption ( Greenbaum and Crawford - Jakubiak 2015 ; Clawson et al. 2009 ). The presence of public places that children and youth frequent, such as movie theaters, bus stops, and shopping malls, have been identified as locations that exploiters force or kidnap victims ( Bo xhill and 6 Richardson 2007). Relaxed le gal enforcement is also connected to CSEC ( Gutierrez 1998; Hodgson 1995 ) and will be discussed in more detail below . O ther factors that influence CSE C and make addressing the issue difficult are also worth mentioning. First, lesbian, gay, transgend er, or questioning youth are especially at risk of exploitation ( Greenbaum and Crawford - Jakubiak 201 5 ), yet this is a population which is typically underserved by youth services, victim service providers, and society. Second, there ha s been a history of treating CSE C victims as juvenile delinquents and criminalizing their behavior , be this due to difficulties in identifying an exploiter or misunderstandings or ignorance of the extent of the situation (e.g. Boxhill and Richardson 2007 ; Reid and Jones 20 1 1 ; Chase and Statham 2005 ) Third, as with situations of intimate partner and domestic violence, CSEC victims may be intimately connected to their exploiter, such as through a romantic or familial relationship, complicatin g identification and victim cooperation ( Greenbaum and Crawford - Jakubiak 2015). Returning to the role of law enforcement, part of t he issue of legal enforcement of CSEC law s, prosecution of offenders, and identification of victims is due to the broader is sue of a wareness. For example, Grace and colleagues (2012 ) discussed the unique role that school nurses have in identifying CSEC vic tims and the need for increased training and awareness among this population. Farrell and Pfeffer (2014) found that law enfo rcement may be unaware of and lack training on human trafficking. There also tended to be a lack of policy, such as to what unit trafficking cases should be sent, differences in identifications between police and victim service providers, and the fact that patrol officers and first responders, who are more likely to encounter victims, are not as well trained in this area due to budget shortfalls. 7 While study focused specifically on human trafficking, which is only one component of CSEC, their observations are still of intere st. Specifically, the a uthors state [i] (50), [t] he use of reactive strategies to identify cases is rooted in a lack of prioritization of human trafficking within local agencies and their 54 ), with detectives believing there was little they could do to proactively combat trafficking. Turning to the focus of t his study, o ne reason an organization may make an issue a priority and decide to engage in combating an injustice , CSEC in this case, is due to the is sue becoming a social problem. The presence of a social injustice or the violation of a human right is not sufficient for an issue to be labeled a social pro blem. Typically, an issue becomes a social problem when it is defined as such by the public (Kohn 1976; Merton 1971; Spector and Kitsuse 2001 ). However, public consensus of an issue as undesirable is not n ecessarily guided by the same perspectives that are used to explain the issue and its conditions ( Lauer 1976). Some organizations are able to turn their issues into social problems by gaining public awareness through media coverage, but others will decide to take on an issue because it has been deemed a social problem . In the constructionist approach to social problems, pioneered by Spector and Kitsuse (2001) , perceptions of a social problem are essential. While previous researchers had focused on the obje ctive conditions surrounding the emergence of a social problem, Spector and Kitsuse argued for the necessity of examining claims - makers and their claims - making activities. The objective social conditions themselves are not of interest. The conceptualizatio n of a social problem comes about via claims that do not necessarily reflect reality except that of the vested interests of the claims - makers . It is a collective perception that arises via human interaction through power and the mobilization of resources t hat dictates whether an issue is deemed a social 8 problem. Whether CSEC is considered an a priori or a posteriori social problem is beyond the scope of this paper. What will be discussed is whether an organization has de termined CSEC to be important enough to make it a priority in their policies , and if they have determined that the underlying factors that support CSEC in the literature are the ones they should also be focusing on . How such decisions are made is where I turn next. Organizational Prio rity Setting The literature on organizational decision making has focused primarily on healthcare priority setting s (the terms decision making and priority setting tend to be used interchangeably , and will be used as such throughout this paper (Daniels and Sabin 1997; Daniels and Sabin 2002) framework has become dominant. The A4R model highlights elements of decision making that are utilized in regards to applying new technologies in heal th care. Four conditions must be met for priority setting to be a fair process: Relevance (rationale based on evidential and principle reasons); Publicity (rationale and decisions on priority setting are publicly accessible); Appeals (opportunities for cha llenge and revision of decisions to accommodate stakeholder concerns); and Enforcement (voluntary or public regulation of priority setting process). As an operationalization of the relevance component of the A4R model in regards to clinical service priorit y setting, Gibson, Martin, and Singer (2004) identified eight priority setting criteria: Strategic fit (fit with organizational vision/goals); Alignment with external directives (alignment with government mandates and legislation); Academic commitments (ad vancing education and research); Clinical impact (ensuring competency/effectiveness); Community needs (current and future community demand); Partnerships (external agreements/commitments); Interdependency (internal cooperation); and Resource implications ( mobilization and use of resources). 9 Even though the A4R model was developed for a healthcare setting, its grounding in justice theories and emphasis on democratic deliberation (Cohen 1994; Rawls 1993) suggests its appli cability in multiple settings. S igni ficant parallels exist between healthcare and social justice/criminal justice priority setting (the term social justice will be used throughout, as some of the org anizations that are included solely focus on a criminal justice framework and others more bro adly on human welfare ). In the healthcare setting, when limited resources are avail able in which to invest in new technologies, a fair decision making process is necessary to attempt to The same concerns occur in the social justice sector. Just as healthcare decision makers are faced with many diseases, each of which demands the technological , financial, and time commitment of the organization, CSEC is one of many injustices that come across the agenda s of government organizations, child welfare agencies, and the like. With limited resources, both healthcare and social justice decision makers are faced with difficult choices of where to place their limited resources. With the accountability to tax payers (or private donors for NGOs) and consumers, there is an additional level of accountability tied to these decision makers in ensuring a fair de cision making process. This is the basis of the A4R model, in that process will involve transparency about the grounds for decisions; appeals to rationales that all can accept as relevant to meeting health needs fairly; and procedures for revising decisions in (Daniels 2000: 1300). To further highlight the applicability of the A4R model t o the current investigation, its basic tenets are comparable to those of other general organizational decision - making mo dels, such as - making (proposed by Cohen, March, and Olsen) states that: 10 [D] ecisions are shaped by f our more or less independent factors: 1. perceptions of current problems facing the organization; that individual members of an organization wish to champion (e.g., the adoption of a new computer system, creation of a new office or function); 3. decision - making opportunities, meetings or committees that are as signed to make a recommendation for action; 4. participants, individuals who are present at decision - making opportunities (Tolbert and Hall 2009 : 115) . To present a unified and condensed model of organizational priority setting that is pertinent to the c urrent research , the above models and operatio nalizations can be summarized in the following three requirements for an issue to be accepted as a n organizational priority as compared to other issues that also demand the th the as internal human resource opportunities for extended consideration of the decision to be made, financial resources, external mandates, or legislati on, and c) some assessment (scientific or relative) of the likelihood to be successful. As I am interested in the degree to which organizations place an emphasis on CSEC as important, it is assumed that the first requirement is met. With CSEC accepted as a social problem, as well as its clear illegality in the US, CSEC as a social justice issue would be an appropriate undertaking for all of the organizations included in this investigation. Second, in regards to internal and external restrictions , legislati on dictates that CSEC is an a bhorrent crime. There is opportunity for misinterpretation of this external mandate. However, all organizations have limited financial and human resources that would limit the degree to which making a decision to tackle an issu e such as CSEC is constrained. Financial resources may not allow for the implementation of necessary combating strategies, while a sheer lack of human capital may not allow for CSEC to be added to the list of organizational priorities . The organizations un der study may differ in their relative degree of resources, but it is assumed that these differences 11 equal out across a large sample size. Thus, requirement two of the unified model is also assumed to be met within the se organizations. As the first two re quirements of the unified model are assumed to be met and roughly equivalent across all organizations, i t is the third requirement, specifically the viability of solutions, that is partic ularly of interest to this investigation . Solutions to CSEC may be available, but not seen as feasible by the organization due to issues of scale flowing from a lack of resources or a different understanding of the environment that supports CSEC . Conversely, CSEC may be viewed as such an immense issue that a plausible sol ution is unknown. A look into how issues are perceived is warranted. In setting priorities, both organizations and individuals are influenced by the way in which issues are framed . T he Yerkes - Dodson Law (Broadhurst 1959) captures two aspects that can dicta te the prominence of a social problem. The law consists of an inverted - U relationship between arousal and performance, in t hat when arousal is extremely high or low, performance is at its lowest. At a moderate level of arousal, performance is at its peak. taken to prisons to scare them into compliance, is a dem onstration of this relationship (e.g. Klenowski, Bell, and Dodson 2010). The teens become so overwhelmed by the ex perience (high arousal) that they deny t hat what they are experiencing reflects reality (low performance/success). To say that organizations experience arousal is anthropomorphizing. However, the Yerkes - Dodson Law can be used metaphorically in terms of soc ial problems. Arousal can be equated to the way in which a social problem is framed, while performance is actions taken to combat the problem. An issue that has low arousal is framed as not a problem. If there is no problem, there is no action (low perform ance). Conversely, t he way in which a social problem is framed can cause it to be present ed in such a way that the issue appears 12 insurmountable. Arousal is so high that bounded rationality is exceeded and innovative solutions are not produced . Weick (1984) gives the example of soaring crime rates framed in the way that the only solution is to expand law enforcement. To achieve this, funds must be redirected away from schools, welfare, and job training. Such a solution results in expanded poverty, addiction, and prostitution, which creates a cycle of increased crime. Weick offers the co ncept of small wins as the way 43 ). If a social problem can be reconceptualized into a series of smaller problems, each smaller problem induces less arousal and thus the social problem as a whole can be more easily combated. At the same time, every win results in a reciprocal loss . Small wins equal small losses , and thus reduc es the stakes with each problem and making it less likely that opponents will serve to dismantle efforts against the social problem. My research will focus primarily on the factors that organizations perceive as influencing the number of C SEC cases they receive and their concurrent relationship with the degree to which the organizations report an emphasis on CSEC as important. Two questions will be addressed in regards to these significant factors: 1) what, if any, is the pattern among fact ors that are perceived as influential and not influential, and 2) are the perceived factors the same as those identified in the research literature as playing a role in CSEC? The first question pertains to the viability of solutions in the unified model of organizational priority setting. Viable solutions are necessary for a social injustice to be prioritized by an organization. What is deemed a viable solution will be guided by the small wins framework, in that an issue must be framed in such a way that it can be easily broken down in smaller, less difficult to combat problems. In this investigation, the influences can be viewed as the broken down problems, yet each of these also 13 needs to have a viable solution in order for a small win to be achieved. The s econd question will be addressed by comparing the influential factors to the research literature. Based on this review, I propose to test the following three hypotheses: H ypothesis One : Agencies that invest in preparing for CSEC cases will report an empha sis on CSEC as important. It is logical that organizations that place an emphasis on combating CSEC will have preparation measures in place to properly address cases when they arise. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. Just because an organizati on has these measures in place does not mean that they place an emphasis on CSEC, as these organizations work on a variety of issues. Thus, they may have these measures in place for when CSEC cases arise, but CSEC may be of the least concern compared to ot her types of cases. Directionality cannot be established with the available data. It cannot be determined whether the organizations determine CSEC to be a priority and then implement preparation measures, or whether preparation measures are put in place an d, as a result of directing resources toward this issue, it is then deemed a priority. What can be established is whether there is a statistically significant difference between organizations that do and do not have various preparation measures in place a nd the concurrent importance that is placed on CSEC. The establishment of this relationship allows for the understanding of whether these variables need to be controlled for in other analyses, as well as whether the proportions of organizations that do and do not have these measures in place may be cause for concern in regards to whether CSEC is deemed important. Additionally, the implementation of preparation measures can be viewed as small wins in regards to combating CSEC. Resource limitations may restri ct how many measures can be put in place, but in terms of 14 the overall picture of CSEC, preparing employees of the organizations is a small step in solving a larger problem. Hypothesis Two tant to the number of CSEC cases the organization handles will report a n emphasis on CSEC. The organizations were asked about a number of factors and the degree to which the respondent perceived the factor as an influence on the number of CSEC cases the o rganization receives , some of which have been discussed in research literature concerning CSEC . To account for the similarities and differences between influence variables that are and are not significant, the idea of small wins and organizational prioriti es being partly dependent upon readily available solutions is employed. Influences are perceived different ly as to whether they are things that can be combat ed and change d or whe ther they are largely uncontrollable. As it pertains to this study, foreign population immigration, population size changes, racial community composition, and - factors, as these tend to require system - wide changes, rather than solely the efforts of individuals or single organizations, a nd a dvocacy/ awareness , law enforcement efforts, tourism, and nightlife establishments as s can cause significant change within these factors. This is not to say that the organizations themselves are actively worki ng on or capable of changing these factors, but rather that if an influence is identified as important, efforts could be made to counter this influence. Changeable and non - changeable are not str ict categories, as all of the factors in this study have conce ivable solutions. However, the difficulty in bringing about change varies , resulting in organizations believing that they themselves or the community as a whole possess the resources in which to enact countermeasures. 15 To better understand this perspective , the following can be thought of as an example. An organization deciding to a ddress foreign population immigration would be facing the possibility of extensive immigration reform, while another organization addressing racial community composition could be facing racially biased legislation and/or action. Combating population size changes may entail immigration reform, limits to emigration, and fertility control. All of these solutions have historically been unsuccessful or necessitated national level effor ts. Poverty is an issue that the U.S. has been attempting to tackle for some time, yet specific, easily implemented solutions have not been identified. These are factors that an organization may view as essentially unchangeable, in that efforts of their ow n or of those in the local community would be unsuccessful at tackling the larger issue. Conversely, advocacy/awareness can be implemented on a local level by small groups of individuals. While generous resources may be helpful, they are not necessary. Sim ilarly, law enforcement can tailor their focus within their jurisdiction without any additional resources if they are pushed to and aware of the need to focus on CSEC. Tourism and nightlife establishments can be promoted or countered locally, with petition s and boycotts at the community - level capable of being successful. It should be noted that no specific hypothesis is being made about the influence variable in ternal/external opportunities/restrictions portion of the organizational priority setting unified model. Public policy can be seen as changeable, in that our democratic system is set up to allow for legislative changes that are pushed by the public and pol iticians. However, because the se organizations are required to act on public policy changes that arise, it follows the theoretical orientation to regard public policy changes as an external constraint rather than as one aspect of the conceivable solutions portion of organizational priority setting. 16 Hypothesis Three: The factors that the organizations report as important in influencing the number of CSEC cases they receive will not be the same as t he factors existing research identifies as important in influ encing CSEC . Each of these factors has been researched in terms of its role in influencing CSEC and discussed above. This hypothesis is intended to compare whether the organizations that are handling CSEC cases are identifying the same influential factors as researchers in regards of their likelihood to report an emphasis on CSEC . The hypothesis that they will not be the same coincides with the second hypothesis, based upon the priority setting literature and the conceivability of solutions. Not all of the factors that influence CSEC may be readily solved, so the organizations may unintentionally be blind to their influence since a solution is not easily achieved. This is in line with the theoretical framework in that the way social problems are perceived and deemed important are not necessarily in line with r eality. On the other hand, it is also possible that this blindness is not an issue, in that organizations and researchers are correctly identifying various influences. If such a disconnect between organizations and research is found, then further work will need to parse out where the issue is, whether it is with the information researchers are obtaining or with how organizations are perceiving CSEC. 17 METHODS D ata for this project come from a larger project into sexual exploitation and CSEC in the U.S., Canada, and Me xico ( Estes and Weiner 2003 ). The portion of the data used here, titled w ere collected to identify the nature of C SE C, subgroups of children at the greatest risk of exploitati on, subgroups of adult exploiters, and modes/methods of expl oitation. Included in the data is a section specific to the organizations themselves and their perceptions of factors that influence the number of CSEC cases received , which is the basis for my wo rk . Senior staff members of both government and nongovernm ent organizations that handle CSEC cases were surveyed, though these organizations were not required to focu s on CSEC exclusively (e.g. child and family agencies, municipal law enforcement, state child welfare organizations , the FBI, United States Customs ). S urveys were sent to a stratified random sample of organizations . Of the governme nt organizations, there was a 24 % response rate for a total of 182 respo ndents and a response rate of 22 % for a t otal of 89 respondents among nongovernmental organizations. For this analysis, e leven cases were dropped (ten governmental and one nongovernment al ) from the original data 1 . It is not known whe ther organizations that did not respond to the survey differ in any respect from those included in this study. While it cannot be said whether the sample is representative of all organizations that encounter cases of CSEC, o ne question of representation that can be addressed is whether only organizations that place a n emphasis on CSEC r esponded . With a low response rate, it is possible that organizations that do not emphasize CSEC failed to respond, and we are left with an oversampling of or ganizations that place an emphas is on combating CSEC. T his potential o versampling does not appear to be 1 Ten of the dropped cases only possessed the city, state, and zip code, but did not have responses to any of the survey questions. An additional case did not have responses to any information or survey questions. 18 a n issue. The mean value for the variable that pertain s to the emphasis the organization places on CSEC is 2.4 17 on a one to four scale, indicating that the mean falls in the middle of all possible response choices with th e responses to this variable being normally distributed. As these organizations are not on one extreme or the other in regards to placing an emphasis on CSEC as important, it does not appear that this uncertainty invalidates the current findings. It shoul d also be noted that the low response rate may be due to the extent of the questions. Many asked for specific numbers, such as how many counties are served by the organization, that would involve looking into databases and archives to retrieve the informat ion. Other archived data, such as how many CSEC cases from 1999 involved individuals 17 years of age or younger, may not be kept by the organization or unavailable to the specific respondent. Measures (see Appendix 1 for the exact wording of the survey questions used) Multiple measures of colinearity were used to measure potential spurious relationships among variables. These tests indic ated no issues among the variables of interest. Emphasis on CSEC as i mportant The de pendent variable of interest is whether the organizations place an emphasis on CSEC as a policy issue. The responses to this question originally among the various type s of cases the organization receives. Data w ere available for emphasis on CSEC as a policy issue and emphasis on CSEC as a service issue, with different and independent questions for each. Saying an issue is important through policy is different from how t his translates to im plementation (service) . For example, in a review of re sponses to CSEC in New York, Ce deño (2012) discussed how Safe Ha r bor legislation requires short - term shelter and long - term safe houses for CSEC victims, though this is only required to the extent that funding is 19 available. As the current theoretical approach focuses on priority setting , (priorities are claims that are made not necessarily actions that are taken) , e mphasis on CSEC as a poli cy issue is appropriate . A ddressing CSEC as a service issue would entail a different approach, such as discussing the disconnects between policy and action and limitations to service implementation. For this investigation, the emphasis variable was recoded into a binary measure , with emphasis on CSEC as important or not important. This binary was arrived at via alpha scaling of three variables ( emphasis on CSEC as a policy issue in 1997, 1998, and 1999 , all measured on the above mentioned 4 point Likert - type scale ) combined into two responses (the new response resp onses). Creating a binary from the original one - to - four scale split the sample essentially at the me an (2.417, SD 0.929) . Thus, the emphasis variable can, generally, be viewed as organizations that rank CSEC as either more or less important than the average. Influence v ariables The influence variables were measured by the question [p] lease rate the relative importance of the factors liste d below in influencing the number of cases of CSEC in your service area All t en of these influence variabl es are considered. The original var iables were measured on the same 4 - point Likert - type scale as the emphasis variable and then broken down into a not important/important binary for analysis . Preparation v ariables Three variables pertain to different measures the organization s may or may n ot have in place to prepare employees fo r handling CSEC cases: w hether the organization provides training on 20 CSEC, possesses a working d efinition of CSEC, and possesses a manual on handling CSEC cases. Mediators Five potential mediators were originally considered that may influence the numb er of cases an organization encounter s : t ( national, regional, state, loca l, or some other service area, w ith each area coded as yes/no ), whether the organization is governmental o r nongo vernmental (yes/no ), states served (continuous), counties served (continuous), and total number of cases handled in 1999 (continuous). The size of a service area may influence the number of cases an organization receives, and t he number of cases an org anization receives may influence the emphasis that is placed on CSEC due to its prevalence . Thus, these variables were included in all models to control for their potential mediating relationship. When training was controlled for , none of these mediators had a significant effect on emphasis on CSEC. So long as training was controlled for, no significant difference s were observed when these mediators were or were not included. For this reason as well as for model simplicity, they were removed from the model s included here. 21 RESULTS In accordance with the above hypotheses, cross - tabulations and binomial logistic regression s are utilized to investigate the relationship between C SEC preparation measures and organizational em phasis on CSEC. Taking these result s into account , additional logistic regression s and a progressive adjustment (i.e. nested models) are used to investigate the factors that influence the number of CSEC cases the organizations re ceive . Whether or not these analyses support their correspondi ng hypotheses are mentioned briefly here and expanded upon in the discussion section of this paper. Table 1 highlights the descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies of all variables used in these analyses. Table 1. Descr iptive Statistics Mean SD Yes Frequency No Frequency N National Service Area 0.241 0.429 41 129 170 Regional Service Area 0.436 0.497 79 102 181 State Service Area 0.532 0.500 101 89 190 Local Service Area 0.878 0.329 193 27 220 Other Service Area 0.447 0.501 34 42 76 Agency Provides Training on CSEC 0.450 0.498 107 131 238 Agency Has a Working Definition of CSEC 0.152 0.359 37 207 244 Agency Has a Manual on Handling CSEC 0.189 0.393 46 197 243 Agency is a Government Organization 0.661 0.474 170 87 257 Emphasis on CSEC as a Policy Issue 0.492 0.501 118 122 240 Mean SD Important Frequency Not Important Frequency N Influence of Foreign Population Immigration 0.240 0.248 52 165 217 Influence of Public Policy Changes 0.442 0.498 96 121 217 Influence of Advocacy/Awareness 0.536 0.450 111 96 207 Influence of Population Size Changes 0.246 0.432 52 159 211 Influence of Poverty 0.386 0.488 83 132 215 Influence of Racial Community Composition 0.257 0.438 54 156 210 Influence of Tourism/Conventions 0.127 0.334 27 185 212 Influence of Federal Law Enforcement Efforts 0.425 0.495 90 122 212 Influence of Local Law Enforcement Efforts 0.561 0.497 120 94 214 Influence of Nightlife Establishments 0.292 0.456 61 148 209 22 Both cross - tabulations with Chi - squared estimations (Table 2) and a binomial logistic regression (Table 3) are used to test the first hypothesis, that agencies that invest in preparation measures will report an emphasis on CSEC. The Chi - squared estimations indicate that a statistically significant difference between organizations that do or do not possess each of these preparation measur es, as well as between government and non - government organizations, is present. Once these variables are regressed together, possessing a working definition loses its significance in relation to emphasis on CSEC. From these two analyses, organizations that invest in preparation measures or are a government organization are more likely to report an emphasis on CSEC, supporting H ypothesis O ne. However, these variables are also included in later analyses, in which their significance is not as strong . Table 2. Cross - Tabulations of Emphasis on CSEC Emphasis on CSEC as Important Emphasis on CSEC as Not Important Total Provides Training 72 (68.57%) 33 (31.43%) 105 No Training 41 (32.03%) 87 (67.97%) 128 Chi ² = 30.8345*** Possesses a Working Definition 24 (64.86%) 13 (35.14%) 37 No Working Definition 93 (46.73%) 106 (53.27%) 199 Chi ² = 4.1029*** Possess a Manual 35 (77.78%) 10 (22.22%) 45 No Manual 81 (42.19%) 111 (57.81%) 192 Chi ² = 30.8345*** Government Organization 88 (55.35%) 71 (44.65%) 159 NGO 30 (37.04%) 51 (62.96%) 81 Chi ² = 30.8345*** *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 3. Odds Ratios of Emphasis on CSEC on Various Factors from Binary Logistic Regression Training 3.497*** Working Definition 0.601 Manual 3.580* Government 2.052* Constant 0.295*** Log Likelihood = - 136.883; Pseudo R ² = 0.137; N = 229 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 23 Hypotheses T the number of CSEC cases received will report an emphasis on CSEC) and T hree (the factors that the organizations report a s important to the number of CSEC cases received will no t be the same as those identified in the research literature) are tested with the same analyses. Table 4 shows the results of the influence variables regressed against the emphasis variable . Advocacy/awareness, public policy changes, and population size ch anges are significa ntly related to placing an e mphasis on CSEC , in that organizations that report these influence variables as important to the number of CSEC cases that are received are more likely to also report an emphasis on CSEC as important. Because of the significance of the preparation and government variable previously, they should also be included in reference to the influence variables due to their potential mediating effect. Table 5 show s the results of a binomial logistic regression progressive adjustment , beginning with training, adding in the influence variables, and including the remaining preparation variables and the government variable. Training was included prior to the other preparation variables due to many more organizations providing training than possessing the other preparation variables, as well as it having the highest degree of significance previously (Table 3). Training remain s highly significant across all model s, although the degree of effect decreases with each addi tional model. With the addition of the influence variables, results change slightly from the regression of the influence variables alone. Both a dvocacy/awareness and p opulation size changes are signif icant across all models. There is some deviation in the degree and strength of effect of advocacy/awareness, while degree and strength are nearly identical across all models for population size changes. With training controlled for, public policy changes are no l onger 24 significantly related to an emphasis on CSE C. No variables are significant that were not previously. Table 4. Odds Ratios of Emphasis on CSEC Foreign Population 1.597 Racial Community Composition 1.498 Public Policy Changes 2.406* Tourism/Conventions 1.041 Advocacy/Awareness 3.867*** Federal Law Enforcement Efforts 1.524 Population Size Changes 0.267* Local Law Enforcement Efforts 2.540 Poverty 0.933 Nightlife Establishments 0.834 Constant 0.210 Log Likelihood = - 102.443; Pseudo R ² = 0.2167; N = 189 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 Table 5. Odds Ratios of Emp hasis on CSEC on Various Factors from Progressive Adjustment (Binary Logistic Regression; N=181) Model 8.1 Model 8.2 Model 8.3 Training 5.391*** 4.007*** 3.277** Foreign Population 2.227 2.02 Public Policy Changes 2.245 1.939 Advocacy/Awareness 2.962* 3.618** Population Size Changes 0.278* 0.261* Poverty 1.191 1.436 Racial Community Composition 1.227 1.135 Tourism/Conventions 0.891 0.902 Federal Law Enforcement Efforts 1.803 1.234 Local Law Enforcement Efforts 1.881 1.846 Nightlife Establishments 0.909 1.272 Working Definition 0.963 Manual 2.176 Government 2.267 Constant .500** 0.120*** 0.067*** Log Likelihood - 110.732 - 91.436 - 89.265 Pseudo R ² 0.1164 0.2704 0.2877 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 The results presented in tables 4 and 5 do not support H ypothesis T wo . With only three of the influence variables reaching significance, a changeable/non - changeable pattern is not established. In terms of correspondence with the literature, some inconsiste ncy is found, thus partially supporting H ypothesis T hree. Hypothesis O ne is no longer fully supported, as only the preparation measure of training retains its significance. 25 DISCUSSION This study set out to determine whether organizations that encounter CS EC place an emphasis o n CSEC relative to other types of cases , as well as what factors play a role in this emphasis. In addition, this study was concerned with whether these organizations reported the same facto rs as influences on the number of CSEC cases they receive as are recorded in the research literature as f actors that influence CSEC or coincide with risk for victimization . Few analyses resulted in continuously significant variables. However, this is a case in which a lack of significance is not a la ck of results. In fact, this makes the findings of this study all the more significant as they are more than just consistent or inconsistent with theory, but depart from any comparability. Returning back to t he three hypotheses, e ach hypothesis is partiall y supported and partially inconsistent with the findings. The first hypothesis asks whether organizations that possess preparation measu res for CSEC cases are statisti cally significantly different in their emphasis on CSEC as compared to those that do not have these measure s in place. Specifically, it is hypothesized that organizations that do possess these measures will report an emphasis on CSEC . Initially, this hypothesis is supported. Cross - tabulations and c hi - squared estimates indicate that org anizations that provide training on CSEC, possess a wor king definition of CSEC, or posses a manual on handling CSEC cases are statistically different in the degree to which they report an emphasis on CSEC as important (whether an organization is government al or non - governmental to investigate whether differences between the type of organization exist and need to be accounted for. The results are similar to those of the preparation variables) . Of the organizations that provide training o n CSEC, more than twi ce as many report an emphasis on CSEC as important and vice versa, with organizations that do not provide t raining being less likely to report an emphasis on CSEC as not 26 important. Similar results are shown for the remaining variables. However, once the in fluence variables are considered (Table 5 ), the only continuous result is that organizations that provide training on CSEC are more likely to report an emphasis on CSEC as important. Compared to organizations that do not provide training, o rganization s tha t provide training have 227.7% to 439.1 % greater odds of reporting an emphasis on CSEC as important (odds ratios b etween 3.277 and 5.391 ) . However, even though all of the organizations in this study hand le cases of CSEC, the majority do not have such prep aration measures in place. While 45.06% of the organizations that responded to both the training and emphasis questions provide training on CSEC, only 15.68% possess a working definition of CSEC, and 18.99% posses a manual on handling CSEC cases. Again, di rectionality cannot be established. It is not known whether the organizations place an emphasis on CSEC and then implement these preparation measures or whether these measures are implemented and , as a result , CSEC later is deemed important. A temporal relationship could be established in future research . This investigation shows that the connection between training and other preparation measures and emphasis on CSEC is statistically significant and important, yet the percentages tell us that f ew organizations possess these measures . The second hypothesis utilizes the small wins perspective to predict that organizations that perceive changeable influence variables as contributing to the number of cases the organization receives will also report an emphasis on CSEC as important. No pattern was found between the influence variables that did or did not correspond with an emphasis on CSEC. Too many variables were insignificant and too few significant for a changeable/non - changeable pattern to be est ablished. Even without a consistent pattern, the influence variables that did reach significance follow the changeable/non - changeable framework. When only the influence 27 v ariables are considered (Table 4 ), public policy changes, advocacy/awareness, and popu lation size changes are significant. Specifically, organizations that perceive public policy changes and advocacy/awareness as important to the number of CSEC cases the organization receives are more likely to report an emphasis on CSEC as important (odds ratios of 2.406 and 3.867, respectively). Conversely, organizations that perceive population size changes as important to the number of CSEC cases the organization receives are less likely to report an emphasis on CSEC as important (odds ratio of 0.267). A s discussed previously, advocacy/awareness is viewed as a changeable influence in the small wins framework due to the viability of a solution. Increasing awareness is a task that can be tackled locally with relatively few resources (although substantial re sources can aid in the speed and ease of this task). Population size changes can only be addressed through large scale immigration/emigration changes or fertility control. Such work generally cannot be handle d on a local level, and thus population size cha nges are viewed as unchangeable. Public policy changes are viewed in this theoretical framework as an external mandate, and thus cannot be discussed in the small wins changeable/non - changeable context. Once training, the other preparation variables, and g overnment al affili ation is controlled for (Table 5 ), the same results are found, with the exception of public policy changes dropping out of significance, indicating that training is masking the effect of public policy changes. This suggests that the relat ionship between training and emphasis on CSEC is so strong that once training is considered, public policy changes as an influence on the number of CSEC cases received is reduced to such miniscule comparative importance that it is no longer significant. T he third hypothesis asks about the similarity between the factors the organizations report as significant to the number of CSEC cases they receive and those that the researc h literature reports as influent ial. It must be remembered that these influence var iables are the perceptions of 28 the respondents. No additional measures are present to confirm that what the respondents are reporting as influent ial to the number of cases his/her organization s receives are an accurate refle ction of the actual conditions. I t is hypothesized that the factors the organizations report as influential will not be the same as the research literature due to some factors having for e seeable solutions while others are more difficult or impossible to combat. While some consistency was found, there was also inconsistency. In the final model, organizations that reported advocacy/awareness and population size changes as influential were more likely to report an emphasis on CSEC as important. A lack of awareness or knowledge is discussed in the research literature as a factor in misidentifying or overlooking CSEC cases. In this research , organizations that report advoca c y/awareness as important in influencing the number of CSEC cases the organization receives have between 196.2% and 286.7% greater odds (or roughly between three and four times more likely) of also reporting an emphasis on CSEC as important. Organizations that report population size changes as influencing the n umber of cases they receive are less likely to re port an emphasis on CSEC as important (odds ratios between 0.261 and 0.278). Population size changes are not discussed explicitly in the literature, but the presence of transient male populations is. While these two are not equivalent, a similarity does ex ist. Organizations that report public policy changes as influencing t he number of cases they receive have between 93.9% and 124.5% greater odds of also reporting an emphasis on CSEC as important. The increase in legislation pertaining to CSEC, both globall y and domestically, was discussed above. As this legislation aims to aid in combating CSEC by such avenues as clarifying definitions of victims and increasing penalties for offenders, this finding of public policy changes as significant is consistent with the increasing prevalence of CSEC legislation. Even with these consistencies, m any of the other influence variables in this investigation are comparable to those in the CSEC 29 literature, such as poverty and l aw enforcement efforts, but no other influences w ere significant in any model . Thus, H ypothesis T hree is partially supported, as variables that the research literature indicates as important in CSEC are not reported as important by the organizations that also report an emphasis on CSEC as important, whil e some that research indicates are important are reported by the organizations. With so many insignificant results, another look at the descriptive statistics (Table 1 ) is warranted. The m eans are low throughout many of the influence variables , demonstrat in g that few of the variables are reported by many organizations as important to the number of CSEC cases t he organizations receive. This, combined with the fact th at only three of the influence variables reached significance in any model, raises a key question: why were none of these influences reported as important to the number of c ases the organizations receive? Do none of these influences play the role as discusse d in the academic literature on CSEC , meaning the conclu sions researchers are making are inappropriate, or are victims, intentionally or unintentionally, inaccurately portraying their experiences? Do the orga nizations perceive the factors that infl uence their caseloads incorrectly ? If so, are the organizations misconstruing their cases, despite training on the subject? Alternatively, is it that each organization experiences such different caseloads that there is no common trend, or is ther e in fact no pattern to how a social problem develops in regards to small wins influencing organizational priority setting? This study alone cannot tease out these answers. It can only suggest that somewhere along the lines, t heory and practice are not lining up . An alternative explanation may explain why few of the influence variables are perceived by the organizations as influencing the number of CSEC cases they receive, as well as why H ypotheses T wo (small wins changeable/n on - changeable influences) and T hree (consistency 30 with the research literature) were largely unsupported. This investigation took the three requirements of the proposed unified model of organizational priority setting and focused on the third requirement (s ome assessment of likelihood of success, specifically in terms of the viability of solutions), having assumed that the first two requirements (organizational fit and internal/external restrictions) are met and essentially the same and equalized out across organizations. However, the external mandates on the organizations may be so strong that the third requirement is nullified. The externalities that the organizations encounter, represented by the influence variables, and their viable solutions in regards t o combating CSEC may not be relevant at all. While public policy changes are already interpreted as an external legislative mandate, perhaps advocacy/awareness is also more closely related to an external mandate than a perceived influence with a viable sol ution. The publicity surrounding CSEC, especially child sex trafficking, is continually on the rise, with such events as PSA s being sponsored by celebrities and commercials running before and during major athletic events. The A4R model of healthcare priori ty setting discusses accountability to shareholders and consumers. Advocacy/awareness may be pushing organizations to take on CSEC as a priority as a form of public accountability due to its publicity and acceptance as a social problem. Rather than advocac y/awareness being prominent due to considering whether the empirical conditions of their jurisdictions (the degree to which the conditions in their area reflect those in the CSE C literature ) raise concerns of CSEC prevalence , advocacy/awareness is increased due to publicity, public interest, and legislation. Thus, advocacy/awareness and public policy changes may both function as external mandates on organizational priority setting, driving the adoption of CSEC as a priority i n and of themselves, regardless of viable solutions to the social injustice. The role of population size changes in this 31 alternative explanation may simply be that when more individuals are present, the opportunit ies for crime and exploitation are increase d. While causality between the preparation measures and emphasis on CSEC was not discussed in this investigation , in this alternative explanation it m ay be that because CSEC is deemed a priority, the implementation of training programs is more likely. Wit h many more organizations repo rting that training is provided than possessing a working definition of or manual on handling CSEC cases, this explanation is logical. The concern that the other preparation measures are rare among these organizations is still present. If training is occurring, but working definitions and manuals are not available, what are the organization s training their employees on ? Where is this training material coming from? With few of the influence variables that are supported by the re search literature perceived by the organizations as important factors in the number of CSEC cases they receive, it is possible that this research is also not recognized when implementing training procedures, although this possibility cannot be assessed wit h this data. 32 CONCLUSION Working with data on organization s that handle cases of the commercial sexual exploitation of children, there is little consistency between the factors that research identifies as contributing to CSEC and the factors that the org anizations perceive as influencing the number of CSEC cases they receive. Just under half of the organization s provide training o n CSEC, while the vast majority does not have a working definition of CSEC or manual on handling CSEC cases. With these finding s and their inconsistency with the proposed organizational priority setting and small wins theoretical framework, it is possible that organizations are prioritizing CSEC because it is the current hot - button social justice issue, both in terms of advocacy a nd legislation/public policy. However, because of these external mandates on priority setting, it is possible that the organizations are not developing thoughtful or empirically driven trainings in which to handle CSEC cases. Further research needs to add ress where the discrepancy between research and practice is occurring, whether research is inaccurate, organization s are misinterpreting their cases , or there is some combination thereof, such as the alternative external mandate explanation . Longitudinal data are especially necessary in order to attempt to tease out causality of priority setting. Not only this, but researchers need to expand their scope to learn more about the organizations that handle CSEC cases. The current data on organizat ions are limited. Most research is focused on identifying an d aiding CSEC victims and c urrent data are largely outdated, considering national and international laws and agreeme nts have been adopted since much of the available data were collected. Recent le gislation has, hopefully, increased the emp hasis and success of CSEC organizations. This plays into the question of whether a representative sample is possible with hidden populations , a question that needs to be debated to enhan ce the legitimacy of CSEC 33 r esearch. Further, qualitative analysts need to investigate t he ways in which we frame CSEC in advocacy/awareness campaigns and in the media, as t undoubtedly influences how this social problem is perceived and , in turn, how anti - CS EC organizations operate and frame their work. 34 APPENDIX 35 APPENDIX : SURVEY QUESTIONS 3. How would you describe your agency's service area (circle as many as apply): a) National Y N b) Regional Y N c) State Y N d) Local Y N e) Other, please describ e: ____________ Y N 4. How many states are served by your agency? Please enter the number in the spaces provided to the right, or circle "N/A" for not applicable. ___ ___ ___ N/A 6. How many counties (or other governmental units, if your state does not have counties) are served by your agency? Please enter the number in the spaces provided to the right. Circle "N/A" for not applicable. ___ ___ ___ N/A 8. Please write in the total number of c ases handled by your agency in 1998. Circle "NA" if not applicable. _______________ N/A The following questions seek to identify the policies and procedures employed by your agency in handling CSEC cases. 10. Please rate the relative emphasis on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) as a policy issue for your agency according to the following: 1 - Most important 2 - Important 3 - Somewhat important 4 - Not important Please circle your response. a) 1997 1 2 3 4 b) 1998 1 2 3 4 c) 1999 1 2 3 4 36 11. Please rate the relative importance of the factors listed below in influencing the number of cases of CSEC in your service area according to the following ratings: 1 - Most important 2 - Important 3 - Somewhat important 4 - Not important Please circle your response. a) Immigration of foreign populations 1 2 3 4 b) Changes in legislation/public policy 1 2 3 4 c) Advo cacy/awareness 1 2 3 4 d) Fluctuations in population size 1 2 3 4 e) Poverty 1 2 3 4 f) Racial/ ethnic composition of community 1 2 3 4 g) Tourism/ conferences and conventions 1 2 3 4 h) Federal law enforcement efforts 1 2 3 4 i) Local law enforcement efforts 1 2 3 4 j) "Nightlife" establishments/districts 1 2 3 4 k) Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4 l) Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4 12. Does your agency have a working definition of CSEC? Yes No 13. The following questions ask you to describe your agency's approach to dealing with CSEC. Please circle "Y" (Yes) if your agency participates in the listed training and policies regarding CSEC. a) Does your agency have a policy and procedure manual rega rding the handling of CSEC cases? Y N b) Does your agency provide staff training regarding CSEC? If yes, please specify: Y N 37 REFERENCES 38 REFERENCES Bolling, Michelle , and Erin Harper. 2007 . The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of C hildren [white paper, electronic version]. Georgia State University Center for School Safety, School Climate and Classroom Management website: http://education.gsu.edu/schoolsafety/ Box h ill, Nancy A. , and Deborah J. Richardson. 2007. "Ending Sex Traffic king of Children in Atlanta." Affilia 22(2):138 - 149 - Dodson Acta Psychologica 16: 321 - 338. Is New York doing enough to combat Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 22:153 - 179. Chase, Elaine , and June Statham. 2005. "Commercial and Sexual Exploitation of Children and Young People in the UK -- A Review." Child Abuse Review 14(1):4 - 25 Clawson, Heather J., Nicole Dutch, Amy So lomon, and Lisa Goldblatt Grace. 2009 . T rafficking into a nd withi n the United States: A R eview of the L iterature . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/ HumanTrafficking/ Cobbina, Jennifer E. , and Sharon S. Oselin. 2011. "It's Not Only for the Money: An Analysis of Adolescent versus Adult Entry into Street Prostitution." Sociological Inquiry 81(3):310 - 332. Cohen, J oshua. 1994. Pluralism and Pr Chicago - Kent Law Review 69 : 589 618. tablishing a Fair Process for BMJ 321:1300 - 1301. Daniels, N orman , and James E . Sabin. 1997. Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation , and the Philosophy and Public Affairs 26(4): 303 - 350. Daniels, N orman , and James E . Sabin. 2002. Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Estes, Richard J. , and Neil Ala n Weiner. 2001. The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work Center for the Study of Youth Policy . 39 Estes, Richard J. , and Neil Alan Weiner. 2002 . The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of C hildren in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia , PA : The University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work Center for the Study of Youth Policy. Estes, Richard J. , loitation of Children in the United States, 1997 - [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter - university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2003. http://doi.org/10.3886/I CPSR03366.v1 Estes, Richard J. , and Neil Alan Weiner. 2005 . The Commercial Sexual E xploitation of C hildren in the United States. In Cooper, S. W., R. J. Estes, A. P. Giardino, N. D. Kellogg & V. I. Vieth (Eds.), Medical, L egal & S ocial Science Aspects of Child Sexual Exploitation: A C omprehensive Review of Child Pornography, Child Prostitution, and I nternet Crimes Against C hildren (pp. 95 - 128). St. Louis, MO: GW Medical. Farley, Melissa , and Vanessa Kelly. 2000. "Prostitution: A Critical Review of the Med ical and Social Sciences Literature." Women and Criminal Justice 11(4):29 - 64. Farrell, Amy , Policing Human Trafficking: Cultural Binde rs and The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social S cience 653:46 - 64. Finkelhor, David , and Richard Ormrod. 2004. "Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns from NIBRS." OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin 1 - 12. Fong, Rowena , and Jodi B. Cardoso. 2010. "Child Human Trafficking Victims: Challenges for the Child Welfare System." Evaluation and Program Planning 33(3):311 - 316. G Care Or BMC Health Services Research 4(25). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472 - 6963/4/25 Grace, Lisa G., Maureen Starck, Jane Potenza, Patricia A. Kenney , and Anne H. Sheetz. 2012. "Commercial Sexual Ex ploitation of Children and the School Nurse." Journal of School Nursing 28(6):410 - 417 Greenbaum, Jordan, M.D. , and James Crawford - Jakubiak. 2015. "Child Sex Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation: Health Care Needs of Victims." Pediatrics 135(3):566 - 574. Gr eene, Jody M., Susan T. Ennett, and Christopher Ringwalt. 1999. of S urvival Sex among American Journal of Public Health 89(9):1406 - 1409. Gutierrez, Estrella. 1998. Rights: Child T raffic in Venezuela Tip of the Iceberg (January 11). http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jan98/venezuela2. html . 40 Hofstede, Al. 1999. The Hofstede Committee Report: Juvenile Prostitution in Minnesota . Hodgson rganized Sexual Exploitation of Asian C hildren: Recent Developments and P rospects. International J ournal of Law and the Fam ily 9(1): 23 - 53. Hunnicutt, Sandra. 2001. Nightmare on Main Street, unpublished paper presented at the Hastings School of Law, February 9. Klenow Jo urnal of Offender Rehabilitation 49(4): 254 - 272. A 25 - Year Review and Appraisal of Social Problems Social Problems 24: 94 - 112. Social Problems 24(1): 122 - 130. Melrose, Margaret , David Barnett, and Isabelle Brodie. 1999 . One Way Street? Retrospectives on Childhood P rostitution . R. Nisbet (Eds.), Contemporary Social Problems (p. 793 - 846). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Mitchell, Kimberly J., Lisa M. Jones, David Finkelhor , and Janis Wolak. 2011. "Internet - Facilitated Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: Findings from a Nationally Representative Sample of Law Enfo rcement Agencies in the United States." Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 23(1):43 - 71 Moon, Katharine H. S. 1997. Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S. - Korea Relations. Columbia University Press. Pearce, Jenny J., Mary Williams, and Cristina Galvin. 2003 . aki ng a Part of You: A Study of Young Women and Sexual E xploitation . Rawls, J ohn . 1993. Political Liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press. Reid, Joan A. , and Shayne Jones. 2011. "Exploited Vulnerability: Legal and Psychological Perspectives on Child Sex Trafficking Victims." Victims & Offenders 6(2):207 - 231. Reid, Joan A. , between Commercial Sexual Explo Child Maltreatment 19(3 - 4):257 - 260. 41 Scarpa, Silvia. 2006 . nstruments to Protect the Most Vulnerable V ictims. Family Court Review 44(3): 429 447. Spector, Malcolm , and John I. Kitsuse. 2001 . Constructing Social P roblems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Taylor - Browne, Julie. 2002. More than One Chance! Young People Involved in Prostitution Speak Out. ECPAT UK Tolbert, Pamela S ., and Richa rd H Hall 2009. Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. 10 th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 22 U.S.C. § 7105 (b) (1) (E) (u) (2000). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNO DC). 2000. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. November 15: New York. Walker - Rodriguez, Amanda , and Rodney Hill J.D. 2011. "Human Sex Trafficking." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 80(3):1 - 9. American Psychologist 39(1): 40 - 49. New Directions in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 653(6): 6 - 24.