The Berlin Turnpike - US Human Trafficking Prevalence Report

Review of Existing Estimates of Victims of Human Trafficking in the United
States and Recommendations for Improving Research and Measurement of

Human Trafficking
March 31st, 2010
Prepared by:
Amy Farrell, Ph.D.
Jack McDevitt, Ph.D.
Noam Perry, M.S.
Stephanie Fahy, M.S.
Kate Chamberlain, M.S.
Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice
William Adams, M.P.P.

Colleen Owens
Meredith Dank, Ph.D.
Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center
Michael Shively, Ph.D.

Ryan Kling, M.A.
Kristin Wheeler
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
Abstract
This research project aims to fill gaps in our understanding of the prevalence of human
trafficking in the United States by systematically assessing and compiling information about potential
victims of trafficking from a variety of existing sources. In spite of our expectation that it would be
feasible to generate such a better estimate, however, the deficiencies in the existing research are
more considerable than we initially anticipated, making it problematic to derive a single concrete
estimate of the number of trafficking victims in the United States. Having a more complete
understanding of the strengths of existing research and extent of the deficiencies in the research on
human trafficking in the United States is itself a substantial finding, however, it suggests that
enhancement of the quality and scope of data that are systematically collected by government
agencies, nongovernmental organizations and researchers is necessary. More complete and reliable
information on actual and potential victims of human trafficking is required to estimate the number
of victims of human trafficking in the United States and guide effective governmental and
nongovernmental efforts to address this problem.
Despite the limitations of existing data identified in this report, we can describe the scope
and character of human trafficking in the United States. In particular, though the most commonly
cited estimate of human trafficking in the United States suggests there are between 14,500 to 17,500
persons trafficked into the United States each year (U.S. Department of State, 2004), we find a much
broader range of estimates of the number of trafficking victims when information from numerous
sources of data is combined. For example, taking the median number of estimated victims that exist
across various types of data sources, we find a yearly minimum of between 5,166 victims reported by
national data collection programs and survey studies to 60,467 estimated victims reported by
economic modeling studies.1 Thus, the most commonly cited estimates of the prevalence of human
trafficking in the United States fall toward the low end of the range of the minimum number of
estimated victims reported by the other studies. Because information about known or estimated
victims of human trafficking was not available for a number of the specific venues where trafficking
is believed to occur, it is likely that the summaries of existing research presented in this report still
offer an incomplete picture of the potential prevalence of human trafficking victimization in the
United States.
We do not present these data as authoritatively representative of the scope of the problem of
trafficking in the United States due to the challenges of the data, but we suggest these ranges offer a
more accurate snapshot of our limited understanding of the scope of human trafficking as made
possible by the existing studies that have attempted to enumerate the problem. At the end of the
report, we present a number of recommendations for improving the collection of data and
estimation of the prevalence of human trafficking in the United States.
1 This range is built up from estimates of the minimum median number of victims of labor trafficking and sex trafficking
in the United States, which range from 1,349–46,849 victims of labor trafficking and from 3,817–22,320 victims of sex
trafficking. See the summary data table in the Executive Summary for more detailed information on these summations.
i
ii
Executive Summary
The trafficking of persons has become a pressing international and national concern in
recent years. Despite heightened public awareness, the enactment of new laws, and increased
funding to combat the problem, we still do not know enough about the true scope of human
trafficking victimization in the United States. The most commonly cited estimate of the number of
victims of trafficking in the country is the figure reported by the U.S. State Department in 2004 that
14,500 to 17,500 individuals are trafficked into the United States each year. Although this estimate
offers a starting point for dialogue about the scope of human trafficking in the United States, there
are a number of problems with its use. First, it is limited to measuring the flow of foreign victims
into the United States, and as such does not account for the number of U.S. citizens or residents
victimized within the country. Second, the estimate does not account for the number of victims in
the United States who escape out of trafficking each year, nor does it provide a cumulative total
number of victims in the United States at any one time. Finally, methodological problems with the
calculation of the estimate and a lack of transparency about the way the estimate was derived call
into question its reliability for informing governmental and nongovernmental anti-human trafficking
interventions. Although the deficiencies of this and other existing estimates of human trafficking are
well documented (Government Accountability Office, 2006), few attempts have been made to use
other existing sources of data and research to inform our understanding of the prevalence of
trafficking in the United States.
This research project set out to derive a more reliable estimate of the prevalence of human
trafficking in the United States by synthesizing the myriad of previously published reports on this
issue. In spite of our expectation that it would be feasible to generate such a better estimate,
however, the deficiencies in the existing research are more considerable than we initially anticipated,
making it problematic to derive a single estimate of the number of trafficking victims in the United
States. This more complete understanding of the deficiencies of the existing literature on human
trafficking in the United States is a substantial finding in itself, and suggests that enhancement of the
quality and scope of data systematically collected on actual and potential victims of human
trafficking is necessary to estimate more reliably the number of victims of human trafficking in the
United States to guide effective governmental and nongovernmental efforts to address this problem.
We introduce at the end of this summary our recommendations for improving the collection of data
and estimation of the prevalence of human trafficking in the United States.
Despite the limitation of the data, however, this research enables us to say more about the
scope and character of human trafficking in the United States than is currently accepted as fact. In
particular, though the most commonly cited estimate of human trafficking in the United States
suggests that there are between 14,500 to 17,500 persons trafficked into the United States each year,
we find that the range of estimates of the minimum number of victims of trafficking in the United
States varies considerably according to the type of source the estimate is based on. When relying on
national data collection/survey studies, the median estimate of the minimum number of victims
each year reaches a low 5,166 victims, whereas the median estimate of the minimum number of
victims produced by studies that are based on economic modeling reaches a high of 60,467. (See the
iii
table of summary data presented below.) This range is derived from estimates of the minimum
median number of victims of labor trafficking and sex trafficking in the United States, which range
from 1,349 to 46,849 victims of labor trafficking and from 3,817 to 22,320 victims of sex trafficking.
Summary of Median Minimum Known Counts and Estimates of Human Trafficking Victims
Identified in Assessed Data Sources, with number of sources upon which counts and estimates are
based (n)2
Adult Sex Child Sex Total Human
Labor Trafficking
Trafficking Trafficking Trafficking Victims
Data Type Counts Estimates Counts Estimates Counts Estimates Counts Estimates
Federal 25 - 68 - 276 - 369 -
prosecution data (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=2) (n=0 ) (n=2 ) (n=0 )
Federal law 37 - 90 - 146 - 273 -
enforcement data (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=4 ) (n=0 ) (n=4 ) (n=0 ) (n=4 ) (n=0 )
Federal victim 50 - 179 - 58 - 287 -
service data (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=3 ) (n=0 )
57 - 35 - 26 - 118 -
Media reports
(n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 )
264 3,191 165 5,231 96 13,787 525 22,209
Local studies
(n=2 ) (n=2 ) (n=4 ) (n=4 ) (n=5 ) (n=7 ) (n=5 ) (n=7 )
National data 381 1,349 675 2,672 480 1,145 1,526 5,166
collection/surveys (n=2 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 )
Economic - 46,849 - 9,533 - 4,085 - 60,467
indicator studies (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=2 ) (n=0 ) (n=2 ) (n=0 ) (n=2 )
We do not present these data as authoritatively representing the scope of the problem of
trafficking in the United States due to the limitations in the existing research, which we discuss
further in the full report. Instead, these ranges represent an assessment of what we know about the
potential scope of human trafficking in the United States based on existing research and data
collection. As we note in more detail in the body of the main report, the data that is currently
collected on human trafficking in the United States has a number of important limitations. In many
cases, the counts and estimates of numbers of victims that is available from existing data sources
represent only a fraction of potential victims. This is due in part to the lack of available systematic
information about the existence of victims in areas where human trafficking are known to exist and
also to the fact that agencies that do collect information on human trafficking victims lack many of
the capacities necessary to successfully identify and track potential human trafficking victims. The
following few paragraphs of this summary briefly examine how we collected and analyzed the data
that does exist on human trafficking in the United States and provides recommendations for
improving the scope and quality of such information.
2
Empty cells in the Counts column mean that the sources did not specify numbers of victims found, but only provided estimates.
Empty cells in the Estimates column mean that we did not find any data upon which to base an estimate from the identified sources.
For more detail on these counts and estimates see tables 4-6 in the body of the report.
iv
As noted previously, the goal of this research project was to employ the existing data from
various sources on the prevalence of human trafficking in the United States, as defined by the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, in order to derive a more complete and accurate estimate of the
problem. To do this, we followed a careful research plan, and made adjustments to this plan as we
realized the challenges posed by the available data. As a first step in this effort, we began our
research by undertaking a comprehensive search of existing research reporting on the prevalence of
human trafficking victimization in the United States to help us recognize the current state of
understanding of the magnitude of the problem. We reviewed, assessed and analyzed the data from
207 identified technical reports, published studies and scholarly articles that include information
about populations that have been trafficked or are at risk for human trafficking. Using information
from these sources, we catalogued known counts and estimates of human trafficking by type of
trafficking (labor or sex trafficking), origin of victim (foreign or domestic) and type of trafficking
venue (e.g. brothels, domestic work, agriculture, etc.). The method of disaggregating the data
according to type and venues of trafficking helped us identify gaps in the current literature. We then
cataloged the types of venues where human trafficking victimization had been identified for each
type of trafficking and attempted to identify sources of information within those venues that might
include counts or estimates of human trafficking victims. This process identified that there are more
sources of information about potential victims for some types of trafficking than others. For
example, we identified more studies or sources of data about child victims of sex trafficking than
about either adult or child victims of labor trafficking.
Later on, we divided up the data according to the type of sources used to produce it:
government counts of officially recognized victims, local studies that look into a specific geographic
location, large-scale national studies, etc. Presenting the data this way illustrates the strengths and
limitations of the various sources of the data, as well as the reason for the existence of different
estimates. Disaggregating the data by source type also helped to avoid double counting the victims,
which could potentially result in a significant over-estimation of the problem. For example, victims
identified in federal prosecution data are also likely to be counted by federal victim service providers;
victims identified by local law enforcement may also be reported by federal agencies who have
worked on the investigations; etc.
It was at this point in the research program that we recognized that the data challenges
would prevent us from generating the meta-assessment we had previously aspired to and would
require us to adjust our research design to focus instead on deriving ranges of existing counts and
estimates of victims of trafficking. For each type of trafficking (labor trafficking, sex trafficking of
adults and sex trafficking of children), we identified ranges of the minimum-to-maximum number of
known and estimated victims. The above table presents the median minimum counts and estimates,
broken down by the seven types of sources.3 (Counts represent the annualized number of victims
3The main sources of data for which we identified counts and estimates of human trafficking victims are federal law
enforcement data, federal victim service data, media reports, local studies, national data collection and large-scale surveys
and economic indicator studies. When multiple studies were available for each main source type, we report the median
count and estimate. For some sources, we could calculate a range of counts or estimates based on the available data. We
present minimum counts and estimates in summary tables and provide the available ranges of minimum and maximum
counts and estimates within the body of the report, Tables 4-6. Data from other sources of information are included in
v
identified in individual studies. Estimates represent the annualized national statistics that could be
derived, where possible, from counts). The calculated ranges of minimum counts and estimates
allow us to put the most commonly cited estimates into a comparative context and assess how well
they correspond with the broader body of knowledge on the subject. The median minimum
estimates from within each source type allow us to conservatively represent an annualized estimate
of the total number of victims of human trafficking in the United States.
The conclusions that can be drawn about the prevalence of human trafficking victimization
vary significantly across studies. As a result, we are reluctant to attempt to derive a single estimate of
the extent of human trafficking victimization based on these unstable measures. Instead, the data
presented in this report help us draw some preliminary conclusions about the known minimum
numbers of labor trafficking and adult and child sex trafficking cases that are identified across
different data sources. Of the three median estimates we have obtained, the one that was derived
from national studies and surveys (5,166 victims) provides a more reliable, although still flawed,
estimate of the minimum number of trafficking victims in the United States. The data sources from
which this minimum estimate was drawn used standard social science methods and they provided
the most clarity regarding their samples, hypotheses and procedures, although it does not account
for a variety of venues where trafficking occurs. In fact, we could not find systematic sources of
information that would help us identify the number of actual or estimated victims of human
trafficking for over 80 percent of the identified venues for the different types of human trafficking
(see Appendix D in the main report for counts of sources by venue). The two other median
estimates (22,209 and 60,467 victims, respectively) could serve to gauge how high the minimum
number of human trafficking victims could be, but they contain many assumptions regarding
unknown factors. It is important to note that the data provided in the summary represents the
ranges of minimum number of human trafficking victims, the main body of the report provides
counts and estimates of maximum number of human trafficking victims that are much higher than
the minimums presented here. Largely the most important insight to be gleaned from the very wide
ranges between the lowest and highest estimates identified in the literature is that the quality of the
available research is lacking. Two points illustrate this lesson. First, the reason why we have reported
these ranges with such large differences between the lowest and highest values is that the data
collectively are of such varied, and in some cases–lower–quality, that it is inadvisable to attempt to
compare them other than in a qualitative fashion. Second, the highest estimate from a type of source
for any of the identified types of trafficking (labor trafficking, sex trafficking of adults, and sex
trafficking of children) is greater than the lowest estimate for that type of trafficking by at least 400
percent, suggesting that there is enormous uncertainty about the national scope of the problem, to
the point that representations of more narrow estimates utilizing these existing data would be open
to considerable questions from the start. This applies to the U.S. State Department estimate (from
2004) as well as to others. Similarly, because no information on numbers or estimates of human
trafficking victimization was available for a number of the specific venues where trafficking is
Tables 4-6, but they are excluded from the summary table because they represent a mixture of other types of sources
that cannot be classified; concerns about double counting prevent their inclusion in summaries.
vi
believed to occur, it is likely that the results presented here offer an incomplete picture of the
potential prevalence of human trafficking victimization.
Recommendations
Informed by our review of existing research and experience of attempting to calculate ranges
of human trafficking victims identified in existing data sources and apply appropriate multipliers for
estimation, we offer a series of recommendations to help improve the quality of data collected on
human trafficking and ultimately improve efforts to estimates of prevalence of human trafficking in
the United States. Specifically, we recommend:
• Enhancing the scope and quality of data reported in U.S. government publications that routinely
provide information on human trafficking victims or suspects (i.e. U.S. Attorney General’s
Assessment, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division data, Heath and Human Services T-
Visa Certification data, etc.). More granular information about victims classified by type of
victimization and victim characteristics is necessary for future estimation efforts. Additional
information on the duration of trafficking conditions until the victim was recovered and the
amount of overlap between equivalent government agencies in handling cases would improve
our ability to use governmental data for estimation.
• Improving the collection of information on human trafficking by law enforcement, prosecutors

and courts. As provided for in the most recent reauthorization of the TVPA, steps should be
undertaken to integrate human trafficking crime classifications into data routinely collected as
part of the UCR national crime-reporting program.
• Enhancing potential sources of data where information on human trafficking is currently not
being captured. For example, reports on exploitive labor conditions across various industries
often do not provide information necessary to determine whether or not individuals could be
classified as human trafficking victims. Information about migration and visas is another area
where the collection of additional data could improve our ability to measure human trafficking.
• Where appropriate, including measures of human trafficking into existing national data
collection programs that tap into populations who may be at risk for human trafficking. Some
examples include the Youth Risk Behavior Study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control
and the National Agricultural Workers Survey.
• Improving basic research on the characteristics of human trafficking. One of the most striking
limitations of using official data to estimate the victims of human trafficking is that we lack basic
research in the field that would help us identify the venues where we should expect to find
trafficking victims and the type of information that would help us generate more accurate
multipliers for estimation modeling.
vii
• Commissioning feasibility studies for conducting a victimization survey of human trafficking
victims. Although the logistics of such a study would be challenging, a well-designed study that
would identify a systematic measure of unidentified victims is critical for understanding the
nature of human trafficking victimization and developing statistical tools to help us understand
the degree to which officially reported victims of human trafficking under-represent the total
victim population.
• Conducting city saturation studies. Because human trafficking victims are believed to be hidden
from public view, official statistics will always undercount the scope of the problem. Intensive
studies of human trafficking, where researchers would saturate potential venues for human
trafficking to identify all possible sources of information across a stratified sampling of U.S.
cities would improve our knowledge of the distribution of victims across different venues and
provides critical information about how often and under what conditions victims of human
trafficking are identified by law enforcement or victim services agencies.
viii
Table of Contents
Background..........................................................................................................................................................................9
Description of Current Project.........................................................................................................................................9
Analysis of the Assessed Studies ......................................................................................................................................9
Discussion and Limitations of Findings..........................................................................................................................9
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................................................9
Recommendations for Improvement of Data Collection........................................................................................9
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................................................................9
References ............................................................................................................................................................................9
Appended materials ............................................................................................................................................................9
Appendix A: List of Assessed Sources........................................................................................................................9
Appendix B: Assessment Criteria ...............................................................................................................................9
Appendix C: Data Collection Methodology .............................................................................................................9
Appendix D: Counts of Identified Sources................................................................................................................9
Appendix E: Original Matrices and Technical Notes for Tables 4-6 ...................................................................9
Appendix F: Computational Notes on the Calculation of Multipliers Used for Data in Tables 3-5...............9
Table of Figures
Table 1: Human Trafficking Venue Matrix ....................................................................................................................6

Table 2: Most Common Estimates of Human Trafficking in the U.S. Cited in Secondary Reports, by Citing
Organization Type ..............................................................................................................................................................9
Table 3: Number of Primary- and Secondary-Source Counts and Estimates Found in Assessed Sources of
Data on Prevalence of Human Trafficking in the U.S................................................................................................10
Table 4: Labor Trafficking – Count and Estimates.....................................................................................................13
Table 5: Sex Trafficking of Adults – Counts and Estimates......................................................................................17
Table 6: Sex Trafficking of Children – Counts and Estimates ..................................................................................22
Table 7: Summary of Median Minimum Known Counts and Estimates of Human Trafficking ........................28
ix
x
Background
Over the past decade, public concern about the trade in people for exploitive labor,
commonly known as human trafficking, has increased dramatically. In response, U.S. policymakers
and government officials have enacted federal and state legislation recognizing human trafficking as
a unique criminal act and supporting programs aimed at its identification and eradication. To
accomplish these goals, the federal government has allocated significant federal funding to increase
awareness and prevent human trafficking, prosecute offenders, and protect victims, including assisting
them to escape from and recover from being trafficked.4
Although there have been numerous published studies and reports about human trafficking
in the United States and internationally, reliable empirical research about the phenomenon is limited.
A recent review of the research literature on human trafficking found that of the more than 700
research-based articles, reports, and books on human trafficking published in the English language,
over half (54 percent) were based on non-empirical research—mainly descriptive accounts of
different types of trafficking victimization (Gozdziak and Bump, 2008)—and only 12 percent of this
research was subject to the traditional peer-review process. Additionally, much of the existing
research on human trafficking focuses on sex trafficking among women and girls (Laczko, 2005).
More research is needed on labor trafficking and the victimization of men and boys to improve our
understanding of human trafficking.
In addition to the lack of basic research on the nature of human trafficking, few studies
reliably document the scope of the problem. The U.S. government has provided a number of
different estimates of the scope of human trafficking internationally and nationally. The first U.S.
estimate of human trafficking, released in 1998, indicated that “an estimated 45,000 to 50,000
women and children are trafficked annually to the United States, primarily by small crime rings and
loosely connected criminal networks” (O’Neill Richard, 1999). The analyst tasked with developing
this estimate searched through intelligence reports and law enforcement data to identify reports of
human trafficking. Data from news clippings about trafficking cases overseas were also used to
extrapolate the number of U.S. victims. A major limitation of this estimate is that it only includes
women and children as victims. In May 2003, the U.S. government revised its analysis of trafficking
into the United States, estimating 18,000 to 20,000 people are trafficked annually into the country
(Office of the Attorney General, 2004). Since 2004, the U.S. government has relied upon an estimate
that 14,500 to 17,500 people are trafficked into the United States annually (U.S. Department of
State, 2004; Office of the Attorney General, 2005).5
4 Since the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act (TVPA)4 in 2000, the U.S. Department of
Justice has spent over $64 million to support law enforcement training and investigations of human trafficking. We used
data reported in the 2002 to 2007 U.S. Attorney General’s Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. Activities to
Combat Trafficking in Persons, released annually by the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to calculate the total allocation
of resources.
5 The 2004 U.S. Government Assessment of Human Trafficking Activities notes, “The new estimates rely on the same
methodology and the same data; they do not reflect a conclusion that trafficking flows are declining” (pg. 8). It is not clear how the
authors of the report reached this conclusion, but the report suggests “More in-depth analysis on regional flows of
i
Though it is not completely clear how the 2003 and 2004 U.S. human trafficking estimates
were calculated, the data for these estimates come from a larger project undertaken by the federal
government to estimate human trafficking worldwide that resulted in the estimate of 800,000 to
900,000 people trafficked across borders globally per year. This estimate was derived from counts of
cross-border trafficking incidents that occurred between 2000 and 2002. These incidents were
identified by researchers at the Institute for Intelligence Studies at Mercyhurst College, who
identified and gathered information about 1,594 human trafficking events through searches of
existing open source information.6 A researcher at the Federal Research Division of the Library of
Congress then assessed the quality of information in the Mercyhurst database and assigned a
credibility rating to each event based on the source and the type of information provided. Reports
recategorized the data into incidents, aggregates or rates.7 Another government agency then re-
checked, validated and prepared the data for estimation. Analysts then broke the information from
the sources down into month of occurrence (24 months), region, trafficking type, and demographic
information of victims. An analyst then used this information to develop estimates of trafficking in
various regions, by type and across age categories using a Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation
method.8 From the estimates of destination countries for human trafficking victims worldwide,
analysts derived the estimated number of victims that were trafficked into the United States—14,500
to 17,500 annually.
The United States General Accountability Office’s (GAO) 2006 report criticized the estimate
used by the U.S. government for being based on unreliable country-level data and not being
transparent in the estimation methodology processes and suggested the statistics were unsuitable for
long-term analysis (GAO, 2006). The GAO also reported that the U.S. government’s methodology
only provides an estimate of trafficking flow for a one-year period. Since trafficking operations are
people led the U.S. Government to adjust the original 2003 estimates downward by eighteen percent in 2004 (from 18-
20,000 to 14,500-17,500) (See Office of Attorney General, 2005).
6 Thirty-nine percent were incidents, and the remainder were aggregate reports or rates found in open source
information. (For a detailed description of the methodology, see Kutnick, Belser, and Danailova-Trainor, 2007). The
open sources that were used include the Foreign Broadcasting Information Service, Stop Traffic List Serve, International
Organization of Migration, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, International Labour Organization, and NGOs.
FBIS is the U.S. government’s open source portal and provides publications from foreign periodicals translated into
English.
6 Reports were placed into one of four categories: “highly credible,” “credible,” “credible but questioned,” or “suspect.”
Events or incidents reported by U.S. government agencies were judged to be highly credible 70.5 percent of the time,
and reports by foreign government agencies were found to be credible 70.6 percent of the time. These made up less than
four percent of all the sources (61/1,594). Press sources made up nearly 70 percent of the sources (1096/1,594), but only
2.7 percent were judged as highly credible, though 69 percent were judged as credible. An interesting source of
information was international organizations, with 371 sources – 90 percent of which were found to be highly credible
(Kutnick, Belser, and Danailova-Trainor, 2007).
7Using this model, unknown numbers are replaced with numbers that experts feel are a reasonable substitution in
estimation models to produce high and low ranges. This process involves averaging various aggregate estimates of
reported and unreported trafficking victims using published reports and data sources. Because the estimates provided in
the published reports often lack credibility, further estimates derived using these numbers may make the final estimate
suspect.
8 From this point on the terms “trafficking” “human trafficking,” and “severe forms of human trafficking” are used
interchangeably.
ii
generally carried out over multiple years before intervention (Bales, 2004; Kara, 2009) the reliability
of the U.S. estimate across years further diminishes. It is important to note that since the U.S.
government estimate does not include domestic victims of human trafficking it excludes a
potentially significant population of trafficking victims.
Other groups have developed estimates of the total number of trafficking victims globally.
Using a capture-recapture methodology for identifying victims of human trafficking that appear in
open source information between 1995 and 2004, the ILO estimated that there are at least 2.45
million people trafficked at any given time. The ILO measure includes transnational and internal
trafficking and is a worldwide estimate (Belser, De Cock, and Mehran, 2005). Similarly, using open
source information, mainly from newspaper accounts, Kevin Bales has estimated that there are 27
million slaves worldwide at any given moment, 10 percent of whom are victims of trafficking (Bales,
1999) and at least 10,000 are in the United States, comprising both American and foreign citizens
(Bales, 2004). Other efforts have been made to provide generalized analyses of trafficking patterns
across geographic regions (UNODC, 2006; Bales, 2005) and to prepare estimates of the total
number of trafficking victims globally and in the United States (Belser et al., 2005; Clawson, Layne,
and Small., 2006 ). The reliance upon open source information such as newspaper accounts or
reports from agencies that have identified victims of trafficking is a major weakness of all of these
and other global and national estimates.
As with other types of hidden crime, the nature of human trafficking makes it difficult to
accurately count the extent of victimization. Human trafficking perpetrators purposefully hide
victims. And once free, victims of trafficking are reluctant to seek help due to trauma and fear. As a
result, government agencies and victim service providers identify fewer victims of severe forms of
human trafficking than would be anticipated based on existing estimates. Reasons for under-
identification of trafficking victims also include inadequate training, reluctance of victims to self
identify, and resistance of agencies to define certain individuals as human trafficking victims (Farrell,
McDevitt, and Fahy, 2008; Newton, Mulcahey, and Martin, 2008). Even when victims are identified,
their cases often do not progress through stages of the criminal justice system where they would be
counted in government statistics because victims who are traumatized or are fearful of retaliation by
their traffickers may be reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement investigations (Antonopoulou
and Skoufalos, 2006; Clawson, Small, Go, and Myles, 2003).
As a result of these challenges, researchers must begin to identify new methods for collecting
data to understand the nature and extent of human trafficking victimization. Until new
methodologies are developed, there is not much that we can learn from existing research. To inform
our understanding of human trafficking in the United States, we conducted a systematic review of
existing estimates and basic research on human trafficking for the purpose of establishing a more
careful understanding of the problem to help guide governmental and nongovernmental
interventions. Although such a review will inform our understanding of the prevalence of human
trafficking in the United States, short of generating improved estimates, this review will identify
methods that could be used to develop more reliable estimates of the prevalence of human
trafficking in the United States.
iii
Description of Current Project
Given that the global and national estimates of human trafficking victimization employed by
the U.S. government have been subject to much debate and critique, we developed a methodology
to bring together data from existing macro- and micro-level studies that capture information on
potential victims of human trafficking in the United States. Numerous studies on human trafficking
or victimization that meets the definition of human trafficking under the TVPA exist in isolation.
Given the hidden nature of human trafficking described above, counts of identified human
trafficking victims found in government statistics likely underestimate the extent of human
trafficking. The goal of this report is to bring together different sources of information and research
on human trafficking victimization and populations at risk of victimization to develop a more
holistic picture of the extent of human trafficking victimization in the United States. To do this, we
identified sources of information about potential victims of human trafficking across different types
of trafficking and different venues where trafficking might exist. We then assessed the strengths and
weaknesses of this research and identified how various sources of data individually and together
contributed to a more complete understanding of the scope of human trafficking victimization in
the United States.
First, we collected 207 studies that included primary data about the phenomenon of human
trafficking victimization in the United States (A complete list of assessed sources is available in
Appendix A). Because this project is intended to inform U.S. policymakers about the scope of
severe forms of human trafficking, we relied upon the definition included in the TVPA.9 The TVPA
classifies severe forms of human trafficking into two main categories: sex trafficking and labor
trafficking. Sex trafficking involves the “recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision or
obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act in which a commercial sex act is
induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person forced to perform such an act is under
the age of eighteen” (TVPA, 2000: Section 103, 8a). Labor trafficking is defined as the “recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor services, through the use of
force, fraud or coercion for the purpose of subjugation to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt
bondage or slavery” (TVPA, 2000: Section 103, 8b).
Many of the data sources we identified employed other definitions, some of which do not
explicitly distinguish between labor and sex trafficking; include additional provisions; or use different
language. These sources were not excluded on that criterion alone, however. We took an expansive
approach with sources that used ambiguous definitions or omitted a definition completely. It was
necessary to use a degree of subjective discretion when determining if a behavior exhibited “severe
trafficking” characteristics and if it should be included in this report. One of the challenges we
encountered in the cataloging and assessment processes was how to classify activities or experiences
that had indicators of human trafficking but did not clearly meet the criteria for severe forms of
9 Since the TVPA states that a “commercial sex act” must be performed (an act in exchange for something of value, i.e.
drugs or money), it is questionable whether pornography could be classified as a severe form of human trafficking.
Therefore, if a child performs a sex act, for the purpose of being filmed/photographed and inevitably distributed, all
while under the pretenses of force, fraud, and/or coercion, the crime may not fall under severe forms of human
trafficking provisions if no commercial exchange was made.
iv
human trafficking under the terms of the TVPA. For example, child and adult pornography could
arguably be considered human trafficking, and this issue has caused disagreement between federal
prosecutors and human trafficking supporters who wish to broaden the definitional scope.10 There
are also disagreements about when adult prostitution crosses the line to become trafficking and the
extent of harmful, unsafe, and exploitative labor conditions necessary to constitute a severe form of
human trafficking. Although we reviewed studies that included information on all forms of potential
human trafficking, we made some conservative decisions about how to utilize the counts from these
sources.
Though some of the sources of information we assessed were specific to human trafficking
victimization, others provided information primarily about conditions or problems not explicitly
defined as severe human trafficking (e.g. prostitution, migrant labor, labor exploitation) but in which
a subset of the victims or subjects fit the definition of human trafficking victims under the TVPA.
To help guide our identification and analysis of the wide variety of sources of information about
human trafficking we constructed a multi-level matrix outlining the types of trafficking victims and
venues in which human trafficking is believed to occur. The matrix, Table 1 below, categorizes
human trafficking by type (sex trafficking, labor trafficking, or undefined/combined sex and labor
trafficking). Within each type of human trafficking, we designated when possible whether the
victims were adults or children and whether they were of foreign or domestic origin. We then
further disaggregated the numbers of victims by the type of venue in which human trafficking might
occur. For example, the shaded row in Table 1 designates information about foreign labor
trafficking victims in the construction industry. In most cases, however, the sources we reviewed did
not provide sufficient information on victim characteristics to allow this process. As can be seen in
Appendix D, very few sources provide venue-specific data, but most of them address broad
categories of victimization.
10 For examples of this research expertise, see Farrell (2009), Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahy (2008), Small, Adams, Owens,
and Roland (2008), Shively, et al. (2008).
v
Table 1: Human Trafficking Venue
Type of Trafficking Adult/Minor Foreign/Domestic Venues
Agriculture
Domestic work
Construction
Factories/Industrial
Domestic Victims Landscaping
Retail sales industries
Entertainment
Restaurants
Labor Trafficking Adult and Minor Forced begging
Agriculture
Domestic workers
Construction
Foreign Victims Landscaping
Retail sales industries
Entertainment
Restaurants
Forced begging
Sex Trafficking Households
Brothels
Hotel/In-call prostitution
Escort service industry
Street prostitution
Domestic Victims Truck stops
Strip clubs
Pornography industry
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Adult Households
Brothels
Street prostitution
Foreign Victims Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Minor Households
Brothels
Street prostitution
Truck stops
Domestic Victims Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival ex
Survival ex
Foreign Victims Households

Brothels
6
Street prostitution
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
7
The selection of potential venues where human trafficking is likely to exist was informed by
our experience conducting primary research on human trafficking and the commercial sexual
exploitation of children in the United States.11 That experience, coupled with our assessments of
existing research specific to the problem of human trafficking, informed our development of the
human trafficking matrix, which guides the present research. We recognize that the characterization
of the field represented by this matrix is only a first step toward developing a comprehensive outline
of the potential venues in which we should expect to find potential victims of human trafficking and
thus where we need to have data on potential victims. We believe future dialogue and research
efforts can continue to improve upon this matrix.
Once we completed a review of potential sources of data for each of the components of the
human trafficking matrix, we assessed the quality of the data from each study or data source. Forty
different pieces of information were captured about each study during the assessment process,
including background on the source materials, sampling, study design, methods and statistical
techniques employed, and estimation techniques employed. Appendix B includes a listing of
categories of information we captured in each assessment, and Appendix C provides a more detailed
description of the methodology used to identify studies for assessment. The narrative assessments
for the 207 studies we assessed are available in a separate technical report that accompanies this
report. We used the information from the assessment process to identify sources of data with more
reliable counts of potential victims of human trafficking. We then identified the date of the data
collection, geographic coverage of the data (national, state, or city), and strengths and limitations of
the measurements for each entry. Information on the number of victims was categorized as either a
1) count of stock, 2) estimate of stock, 3) count of flow, 4) estimate of flow, or 5) information on
lifetime victimization.12 Because very few sources dealt with flows of victims (and none with
estimates of lifetime victimization), we abandoned these categories and contracted the matrix into
two categories: counts and estimates of victims identified.
We then populated the cells in the human trafficking matrix (Table 1) with data on victims
identified in the studies we assessed in order to identify types of trafficking and venues in which we
had more or less information. Not surprisingly, we were unable to identify any research that reliably
provides counts of victims of human trafficking across numerous venues for different types of
trafficking. The table in Appendix D illustrates the distribution of reports with data on victims
across the categories in the human trafficking matrix. One of the main findings from this exercise is
the fact that existing research on human trafficking in the United States is incomplete. This
deficiency in existing research makes it extremely problematic to attempt to derive estimates of the
number of victims in the United States.
11“Stock” refers to the number of persons who are in the state of being trafficked in a specific period. “Flow” refers to
the number of persons who move in and out of the state of being trafficked in a specific period. “Lifetime victimization”
refers to persons who have ever been trafficked in their lifetime.
12 Original estimate found in the U.S. Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report, 2004. The estimate was
explained in more detail in the 2004 Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons
(Office of Attorney General, 2005).
8
Despite this limitation, we do know something about the number of potential sex and labor
trafficking victims who have been identified across different venues. In the following sections of the
report, we use that information to develop some estimated ranges of potential victims of human
trafficking. These ranges represent both low and high counts of victims identified in existing
research and low and high ranges of estimated human trafficking victims that were derived from
existing research.
Because necessary information is missing across a number of the venues in which human
trafficking is believed to exist, it is not possible at this time to develop an accurate estimate of the
total number of human trafficking victims in the United States based on the available data.
E4nhancing the quality and scope of data on potential victims of human trafficking is critical if
organizations and agencies hope to estimate more reliably the number of victims of human
trafficking in the United States. In the conclusion section of this report, we discuss in more detail
the gaps in the existing data and data collection systems and provide recommendations to improve
the quality of data.
Analysis of the Assessed Studies

Once all the studies identified for this project were assessed and information about those
studies’ counts or estimates of human trafficking was mapped onto the human trafficking matrix, we
more closely analyzed the data from existing research for each cell of the matrix. Working cell by
cell, we developed analytic memos to describe each source of data, identify weaknesses or limitations
of the data, and apply multipliers where appropriate to estimate national statistics from local or
regional data. Additionally, for studies that included only general information about human
trafficking victims but did not specify the type of trafficking or victim characteristics, including the
proportion of foreign and domestic victims or adult and child victims, we applied multipliers of
known distributions of these populations from other reliable sources to inform our more specific
trafficking type and venue analysis. Following the modification and recalculation process,
information from the various studies in each cell of the matrix was combined to identify a range of
minimum and maximum potential victims based on existing research. We were not able to combine
the results of various studies together within or across cells through more traditional meta-analysis
procedures because the quality of data in many studies was poor and there were extreme differences
in the types and levels of data collected across the assessed studies.
The assessment process revealed that, despite criticisms of the worldwide and U.S.
trafficking estimates, the existing literature about human trafficking relies heavily on U.S.
government estimates of the number of victims of human trafficking in the United States. As
illustrated in Table 2, of the 207 studies reviewed for this project, the three most commonly cited
estimates are: 14,500–17,500 people trafficked annually into the United States,13 18,000–20,000
people trafficked annually into the United States,14 and 45,000–50,000 women and children
13 Estimate originally found in the 2003 Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons
(Office of Attorney General, 2004).

14 Estimate provided by the CIA and referenced in the TVPA 2000 legislation, see O’Neill Richard, 1999).
9
trafficked annually into the United States.15 If one breaks down reports by type of agency, we found
the 2004 estimate of 14,500 to 17,500 to be the most commonly cited estimate, appearing in at least
19 governmental reports, seven nongovernmental reports, and nine reports by other types of
agencies.
Table 2: Most Common Estimates of Human Trafficking in the U.S. Cited in Secondary Reports, by
Citing Organization Type
U.S. Government Nongovernmental Other Total
Organization
14,500–17,500 people trafficked into the 19 7 9 35
U.S. (U.S. Department of State, 2004)
45,000–50, 000 women and children
trafficked annually into the U.S. (CIA and
8 3 14 25
referenced in the TVPA 2000 legislation)
18,000–20,000 people trafficked annually in 4 0 4 8
U.S. (Office of Attorney General, 2004)
Although these are the most commonly cited estimates of human trafficking, they are not
necessarily the most accurate estimates of the problem. These estimates suffer from a number of
important limitations, some of which were described in more detail in earlier sections of the report.
The most commonly cited estimates are based on counts of incidents of human trafficking identified
in public documents, mainly U.S. and international news reports, which likely represent only a
fraction of total cases. Additionally, the counts upon which these estimates were derived are based
on old data, mainly collected in 2000 and 2001. Most important, the mathematical procedures used
to produce estimates of the flow of human trafficking victims into the United States are not publicly
available. As a result, it is impossible to understand exactly how the estimates were derived or to
validate the soundness of the derivation process.
Beyond referencing U.S. government estimates of human trafficking, 110 sources provided
data or derived estimates that informed our analyses (See Table 3). Twenty-three reports included an
original estimate derived from other primary data sources, 27 reports included original estimate(s)
derived from secondary data source(s), and 7 reports included original estimates derived from both
the primary and secondary data source(s). Fifty-three reports used primary sources of data to
provide counts of human trafficking victims, cases of human trafficking, or arrests or prosecutions
but did not derive estimates from that data to account for the unrepresentative sample. Twenty-nine
sources did not cite any existing estimates or provide primary data.
15 Due to limitations on available data on labor trafficking, we were not able to separate out counts or estimates of adult
and child labor trafficking victims.
10
Table 3: Number of Primary- and Secondary-Source Counts and Estimates Found in Assessed
Sources of Data on Prevalence of Human Trafficking in the U.S.
Total Sources
(N=110)
Primary sources of data provided only counts of human trafficking 53
victims, no estimates derived
Original estimate of human trafficking victims derived from primary data 23
Original estimate of human trafficking derived from secondary data 27
Original estimate of human trafficking derived from primary and 7

secondary data
As described above, we grouped together and analyzed counts and estimates of victims
identified through the assessment process into the human trafficking matrix by type of human
trafficking and venue. In cases where counts of victims were available across multiple years, the data
were annualized to standardize the time period for which counts and estimates are provided (See
Appendix E for more information on specific annualized counts). The following sections provide
detailed reviews of the counts and estimates of human trafficking victims for each of the three
trafficking types: labor trafficking of adults and minors16, sex trafficking of adults, and sex trafficking
of minors. Using count and estimate data from each study that included statistics about trafficking
(or from which trafficking statistics could be imputed), we calculated a range of low and high counts
and estimates for both foreign and domestic trafficking victims. Detailed information about these
calculations, including how the original data were collected, the strengths and limitations of the data
sources, and the calculations we used to derive estimates from counts or distribute counts among
types of trafficking in different venues can be found in Appendix E. Readers should carefully cross-
reference the statistics listed in each row of the tables with the narrative summary of these statistics
for each study. Study numbers in the tables refer to the detailed descriptions of calculations found in
Appendix E.
The sources of data we have examined for this exercise vary greatly in terms of their scope,
basic assumptions, research design, reliability, and validity, to a degree that makes them
incomparable with each other. Within each source, category, and venue, there is an unquantifiable
degree of double counting of victims–either in the original counts or in the estimations. As a result,
16 In some case studies or reports about identified human trafficking victims, counts of trafficking were not broken
down by trafficking type. When that occurred, we applied multipliers of known distributions of human trafficking
victims across types of trafficking found in other studies (e.g. Kyckelhahn, Beck, and Cohen, 2009)—allowing us to sort
these more generalized human trafficking victimization statistics into specific types of human trafficking used in this
analysis (e.g. labor, adult sex, and child sex trafficking). (Detailed information about these computations can be found in
Appendix F.) Additionally, for studies that are local or regional in nature, we have applied multipliers where appropriate
to help estimate numbers of national trafficking victimization based on small, local, or regional studies. In other cases,
there was insufficient information about the representativeness of the counts to the full population to allow us to derive
estimates.
11
it would not be advisable to sum the number of identified victims across source types.
Instead, we have presented a series of ranges of the lowest and highest counts and estimates (where
possible)17 for both foreign and domestic victims within each source type. These ranges include the
lowest median counts or estimates within a column and the highest median counts or estimates
within a column. We recognize that this information does not lend itself to summing up easily across
sources, venues, or types of trafficking. In fact, in many cases the ranges even within a single venue
for a single type of trafficking are quite vast. These large differences between low and high counts
and estimates that are available from the extant research on human trafficking in the United States
illustrate the challenge of using existing data to develop new, reliable estimates of human trafficking
victimization.
Because there are numerous issues related to the scope and reliability of data collected that
are common within specific types of sources of information, we have grouped our presentation of
the data for each type of trafficking by source type. The detailed data on labor trafficking, adult sex
trafficking, and child sex trafficking presented in Tables 4–6 below provide some parameters
through which we can understand the known scope of the problem and help identify the need for
additional research and improved data collection. Additional detail about the studies assessed for
Tables 4–6, including all calculations and multipliers can be found in Appendix E. We have done
our best to produce estimates that reflect what we deemed the most reliable pieces of literature and
victim count. For this purpose, we have left out from the following tables some sources that we
found to be less reliable or too specific. For this reason and others, it is possible that the ranges of
victims we identified across different types of human trafficking are more reflective of the
mathematical processes that we used to derive the estimates than the actual scope of trafficking
victimization.
The following discussion and data presented in Tables 4–6 walk through the counts and
estimates of U.S. labor trafficking, adult sex trafficking, and child sex trafficking victims identified in
existing research and grouped by source type. The data presented in the following tables
demonstrate that estimates that rely on prosecutions, federal government agencies, and public media
sources are systematically prone to undercount the number of victims. The reasons are diverse, but
they all involve the fact that these sources filter out some number of victims. Large-scale surveys
conducted by social scientists capture more victims and enable us to make plausible estimates based
on their findings. The state and local studies typically use multiple sources and provide a good
understanding of a limited geographic area. When we extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S.
population, the estimates are of similar magnitude to the estimates based on the large-scale studies.
Sources that are not based on actual counts, but rather use economic and statistical models, generate
even higher estimates. With little data on the methods employed in these studies, we find them to be
less reliable. However, they do attempt to account for the hidden population of victims who are
never counted in any known source.
17 A source is not the same as a study or report, as one study can contain data from more than one source, and two
studies can both rely on the same data source. See Appendix D for more details on sources.
12
It is important to note that it is possible, and in some cases quite likely, that there are double
counts of individual victims across the categories of sources of information provided in Tables 4–6.
As a result, we have computed the average count and estimate within source types and do not
attempt to sum counts or estimates across source types in each table.
13
Table 4: Labor Trafficking – Count and Estimates
National estimate of
Counts of victims
victims Tech.
Data type Source of data References
Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic note
Low High Low High Low High Low High
Federal Federal prosecutions in
prosecution 24 24 1 1 - - - - which trafficking was Motivans, 2006 8
data the leading offense
Federal law Office of the
Cases opened by the
enforcement 22 22 1 1 - - - - Attorney General, 2
Civil Rights Division
data 2009
Cases opened by the
enforcement 36 36 2 2 - - - - Attorney General, 3
FBI
data 2009
Federal law Cases opened by Office of the
enforcement 361 361 - - - - - - Immigration and Attorney General, 4
data Customs Enforcement 2006-2009
Median of
federal law
36 36 1 2 - - - -
enforcement
data
Federal victim Office of the
The Office for Victims
service data 89 89 4 4 - - - - Attorney General, 5
of Crime
2009
The Legal Services
service data 36 36 1 1 - - - - Attorney General, 6
Corporation
2004-2009
Federal victim Certifications and
Office of the
service data letters of eligibility
48 48 - - - - - - Attorney General, 7
issued by the Office of
2006-2009
Refugee Resettlement
Median of
federal victim 48 48 2 3 - - - -
service data
Bales, 2004;
Newspaper articles and
Media reports 55 83 2 3 - - - - Human Rights 11
expert interviews
Center, 2005
Minnesota Office
A survey of service of Justice
Local studies 39 39 2 2 2,263 2,263 92 92 12
providers in MN Programs, 2007
and 2008
California Alliance
Interviews with law
to Combat
enforcement agencies,
Local studies 466 466 19 19 3,869 3,869 157 157 Trafficking and 13
prosecutors, victims
Slavery Task
service providers in CA
Force, 2007
Median of
253 253 11 11 3,066 3,066 125 125
local studies
14
Counts of victims
victims Tech.
Human Trafficking
National data
Reporting System Kyckelhahn, Beck,
collection/sur 246 246 10 10 1,296 1,296 53 53 1
(HTRS) data on alleged and Cohen, 2009
veys
cases
National data
A survey of law Farrell, McDevitt,
collection/sur 484 484 21 21 5,435 5,435 226 226 9
enforcement agencies and Fahy, 2008
veys
National data Newton, Dutch,
A survey of law
collection/sur - - - - 141 1,400 6 58 & Cummings, 10
enforcement agencies
veys 2008
Median of
large-scale 365 365 16 16 1,296 1,296 53 58
surveys
Multiple economic
Economic
indicators of eight
indicator - - - - 46,849 46,849 - - Clawson, 2005 14
Latin American
studies
countries
Reports of abuses
against foreign workers Oxfam America,
Other sources 400 1,000 - - - - - - 15
in agriculture in FL, 2004
GA, and SC
Interviews with service
providers for migrants
Other sources 124 136 - - 2,541 2,787 - - who work as domestic Pier, 2001 16
workers in the DC
region
Expert estimates
Other sources - - - - - - 25 300 regarding traveling Urbina, 2007 17
magazine crews
15
The following description walks through the data presented in Table 4 by the source of
information from which counts and estimates were drawn. Seventeen sources provided detailed
information upon which we could reliably extract a count or estimate of labor victims identified in
the study.18
Federal prosecutions
Counts of 24 foreign labor trafficking and 1 domestic labor trafficking victim were derived
from numbers of federal prosecutions in which trafficking is a leading offense. Several reasons cause
this number to be the lowest measure for the number of trafficking victims. Beyond the clandestine
nature of human trafficking, which impedes law enforcement identification, only a minority of
trafficking investigations result in sufficient evidence for a prosecution. Moreover, the decision
whether to prosecute is not based merely on the merits of the case but also on various political
reasons, especially on the federal level. Because we do not have any information on the proportion
of trafficking cases that end up being prosecuted, it was not possible to derive any estimates from
these data. We cannot derive any national estimates from the federal prosecution data, because it is
unlikely that the human trafficking cases brought to federal prosecution are representative of the
national population of human trafficking upon which multipliers could appropriately be applied.
Federal law enforcement data

Medians of 36 foreign labor trafficking and 1 to 2 domestic labor trafficking victims were
identified across three sources of data on cases opened by several federal law enforcement
agencies.19 Across the studies, the number of victims ranged from a low 25 victims identified in the
Civil Rights Division data to a high of 361 victims identified in the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) data. Although separate law enforcement agencies contribute data to each study,
these numbers cannot be simply added up; based on previous research, we know that the same
human trafficking incident may investigated and reported by more than one agency (Farrell,
McDevitt, and Fahy, 2008). Because we cannot determine the proportion or distribution of human
trafficking cases that would come to the attention of federal law enforcement agencies, nor can we
estimate the number of cases that are investigated by multiple agencies, we cannot estimate the
number of victims that exist nationally but were not counted in these sources.
Federal victim service data

Medians of 48 foreign labor trafficking victims and 2 to 3 domestic labor trafficking victims
were identified in reports on victims served by agencies that have been commissioned by the federal
government to provide services to alleged victims of severe forms of trafficking. Because these
agencies provide different kinds of services, it is extremely likely that victims are served by more
than one agency, and as a result some victims may be double counted across these studies. We also
18 See information in the technical notes in Appendix E on the calculation of victims per case that was applied for some
of these sources of data.

19 See information in the technical notes in Appendix E on the calculation of victims per case that was applied for some
16
do not have data on the proportion of trafficking victims that draw the attention of these agencies,
and therefore cannot produce a national estimate based on these data.
Media reports
Between 55 and 83 foreign and 2-3 labor trafficking victims were cases identified through a
survey of newspaper articles over a seven-year period. Not all of the discovered trafficking cases get
mentioned in public media, which aim to attract readers rather than to necessarily reflect reality. As a
result, we have no reliable data on the proportion of trafficking incidents that end up in the public
media and therefore cannot produce an estimate based on these data.
Local studies
Medians of 253 foreign labor trafficking victims and 11 domestic labor trafficking victims
were identified in local human trafficking studies. These data were gathered by local task forces in
California and Minnesota from various local sources. In both cases, we have produced national
estimates by extrapolating the state data based on population size.
Large-scale surveys
Averages of 365 foreign labor trafficking victims and 16 domestic labor trafficking victims
were identified in data from local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The first
source of information, the Human Trafficking Reporting System (HTRS), is a system into which
human trafficking task forces nationwide constantly enter data on incidents they encounter. The
other two sources are surveys of law enforcement agencies that were chosen through random
samples. Using our knowledge of the sample sizes and sampling procedures of the first two sources,
we were able to provide both data that are based on the original samples and extrapolated estimates
for the entire United States. We could not do the same thing for the third source, in which only the
national estimates are provided.
Surveying task forces and non-federal law enforcement agencies provides more
comprehensive data than federal sources can produce. Moreover, the sampling procedures of these
sources make them the most reliable for quantifying the number of trafficking victims in the United
States. However, they do not account for hidden victims who have not been identified. From the
available data, we cannot estimate how many unidentified victims exist.
Economic-based estimates
An estimate of 46,849 foreign trafficking victims was identified in a study based on an
economic model that relies on international macroeconomic indicators. No actual victims were
identified for the process of producing this estimate.
Three additional sources of information contained counts or estimates of labor trafficking

victims. Although the findings from these studies are included in Table 4, we did not combine these
estimates into our summaries because different sources of information were used to gather data that
17
likely contain double counting and at the same time are sufficiently different that it would be
inappropriate to calculate median estimates across these studies.
18
Table 5: Sex Trafficking of Adults – Counts and Estimates
Counts of victims19
victims20 Tech.
Federal Federal prosecutions in
prosecution 25 25 43 43 - - - - which trafficking was the Motivans, 2006 8
data leading offense
Cases opened by the
enforcement 9 9 15 15 - - - - Attorney 2
data General, 2009
enforcement 44 44 76 76 - - - - Cases opened by the FBI Attorney 3
data General, 2009
Office of the
Federal law
Immigration and Attorney
enforcement 307 307 - - - - - - 4
Customs Enforcement General, 2006-
data
2009
Median of
federal law
44 44 46 46 - - - -
enforcement
data
The Office for Victims
service data 80 80 140 140 - - - - Attorney 5
of Crime
General, 2009
service data The Legal Services Attorney
33 33 57 57 - - - - 6
Corporation General, 2004-
2009
Federal victim Certifications and letters Office of the
service data of eligibility issued by the Attorney
148 148 - - - - - - 7
Office of Refugee General, 2006-
Resettlement 2009
Median of
federal victim 80 80 99 99 - - - -
service data
Bales, 2004;
expert interviews
Center, 2005
Minnesota Office
Local studies 49 49 84 84 2,765 2,765 4,815 4,815 12
and 2008
California
Interviews with law Alliance to
enforcement agencies, Combat
Local studies 127 127 220 220 1,051 1,051 1,830 1,830 13
prosecutors, victims Trafficking and
service providers in CA Slavery Task
Force, 2007
Thukral and
Local studies 3 4 5 6 108 125 187 217 providers in New York 22
Ditmore, 2005
City
19
Counts of victims19
victims20 Tech.
Arrest data in Chicago O’Leary and
Local studies 166 567 69 283 16,094 55,135 28,026 96,011 21
and expert interviews Howard, 2001
Median of
88 88 77 152 1,908 1,908 3,323 3,323
local studies
Human Trafficking
National data Kyckelhahn,
Reporting System
collection/ 246 246 429 429 1,297 1,297 2,259 2,259 Beck, and 1
(HTRS) data on alleged
surveys Cohen, 2009
cases
National data
Farrell,
collection/sur A survey of law
87 87 156 156 962 962 1,710 1,710 McDevitt, and 9
veys enforcement agencies
Fahy, 2008
National data
Newton, Dutch,
collection/ A survey of law
- - - - 37 375 67 667 and Cummings, 10
surveys enforcement agencies
2008
National data
National UCR data Puzzanchera,
collection/
6,390 12,780 11,128 22,256 - - - - (arrests for prostitution Adams, and 23
surveys charges) Kang, 2008
Median of
national 246 246 429 429 962 962 1,710 1,710
data/surveys
Multiple economic
Economic
indicators of 15 countries
indicator - - - - 8,733 8,733 - - Clawson, 2007 18
in Eastern Europe and 8
studies
in Latin America
Economic Field research, interviews

indicator - - - - 2,268 2,268 4,032 4,032 with victims and experts, Kara, 2009 19
studies and official data
Median of
economic
- - - - 5,501 5,501 4,032 4,032
indicator
studies
Website of U.S. strip Raphael and
Other sources - - - - 382 382 488 488 24
clubs Ashley, 2008
Field research in Mexico
Other sources - - - - 3,500 - - - Acharya, 2006 20
City
20
The following description walks through the data presented in Table 5 by the source of information
from which counts and estimates were drawn.
Counts of 25 foreign adult sex trafficking and 53 domestic adult sex trafficking victims were
derived from counts of federal prosecutions in which trafficking is a leading offense. As we stated in
the earlier labor trafficking discussion, only a minority of trafficking investigations result in sufficient
evidence for a prosecution, and as a result the number of victims identified in federal prosecution
data is quite low. We cannot derive a national estimate from the federal prosecution data, since it is
unlikely that the human trafficking cases brought to federal prosecution are representative of the
national population of human trafficking upon which multipliers could appropriately be applied.

Medians of 44 foreign adult sex trafficking and 46 domestic adult sex trafficking victims
were identified in the data on cases opened by federal law enforcement agencies.20 Across the
studies, the number of victims ranged from a low of 24 victims (foreign and domestic) identified in
the Civil Rights Division data to a of high of 307 victims in cases investigated by ICE. Although
separate law enforcement agencies contribute data to each study, these numbers should not be
combined. Because we cannot determine the proportion or distribution of human trafficking cases
that would come to the attention of federal law enforcement agencies, or estimate the number of
cases that are investigated by multiple agencies, we cannot estimate the number of victims that exist
nationally but were not counted in these sources.

Medians of 80 foreign adult sex trafficking victims and 99 domestic adult sex trafficking
victims were identified in reports on victims served by agencies that have been commissioned by the
federal government to provide services to alleged victims of severe forms of trafficking. Because
these agencies provide different kinds of services, it is extremely likely that victims are served by
more than one agency, and as a result some victims may be double counted across these studies.
Since we do not have data on the proportion of trafficking victims that draw the attention of these
agencies, we cannot produce a national estimate based on these data.
Media reports
Between 13 and 22 foreign, and 22 and 38 domestic adult sex trafficking victims were
identified through a survey of newspaper articles over a seven-year period. Because not all of the
discovered trafficking cases get mentioned in public media, we have no reliable data on the
proportion of trafficking incidents that end up in the public media and therefore cannot produce an
estimate based on these data.
20See information in the technical notes in Appendix E on the calculation of victims per case that was applied for some
21
Local studies
A median of 88 foreign adult sex trafficking victims and 77–152 domestic adult sex
trafficking victims were identified in local human trafficking studies. These data were gathered by
local agencies or researchers in California, Minnesota, New York, and Chicago. We have produced
national estimates by extrapolating from the local and state data provided by these sources to a
national estimate based on population size.
National data collection and surveys

Averages of 365 foreign adult sex trafficking victims and 16 domestic adult sex trafficking
victims were identified in data from local law enforcement agencies either in national data collection
programs (UCR) or large-scale surveys. Three of the sources relied on sampling procedures where
enough information was provided that national estimates could be derived. The sampling
procedures of these sources make them the most reliable for quantifying the number of trafficking
victims in the United States. However, they do not account for hidden victims who have not been
identified. From the available data, we cannot estimate how many unidentified victims exist. No
estimation was conducted for UCR data, since they contain information from all law enforcement
agencies in the United States participating in the national crime reporting program.
Median estimates of 5,501 foreign adult sex trafficking and 4,032 domestic adult sex
trafficking victims were identified in two studies based on an economic model that relies on
international macroeconomic indicators. No actual victims were identified for the processes of
producing these estimates.
Two additional sources contained information about potential adult sex trafficking victims
from which we could derive national estimates. We did not combine these estimates into our
summaries however, because different sources of information were used to gather data that likely
contain double counting and at the same time are sufficiently different that it would be inappropriate
to calculate median estimates across these studies.
22
Table 6: Sex Trafficking of Children – Counts and Estimates
Counts of victims19
victims20 Tech.
Data type Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Source of data References
note
Federal
in which trafficking
prosecution 11 11 19 19 - - - - Motivans, 2006 8
was the leading
data
offense
Federal
Federally prosecuted
prosecution 188 188 333 333 - - - - Small, et al., 2008 27
CSEC cases
data
Median of
federal
100 100 176 176 - - - -
prosecution
data
Cases opened by the
data General, 2009
Cases opened by the
FBI
data General, 2009
Office of the
Federal law Immigration and
Attorney
enforcement 132 132 - - - - - - Customs 4
General, 2006-
data Enforcement
2009
Innocence Lost
enforcement - - 108 108 - - - - Attorney 28
Initiative
data General, 2008
Median of
federal law
19 19 32 32 - - - -
enforcement
data
The Office for
service data 34 34 60 60 - - - - Attorney 5
Victims of Crime
General, 2009
service data The Legal Services Attorney
14 14 24 24 - - - - 6
Corporation General, 2004-
2009
Federal victim Certifications and
Office of the
service data letters of eligibility
Attorney
16 16 - - - - - - issued by the Office 7
General, 2006-
of Refugee
2009
Resettlement
Median of
victims served
16 16 42 42 - - - -
by service
providers
23
Counts of victims19
victims20 Tech.
note
Bales, 2004;
Newspaper articles
and expert interviews
Center, 2005
Minnesota Office
Local studies 35 35 61 61 1,993 1,993 3,470 3,470 12
and 2008
California
Interviews with law
Alliance to
enforcement
Combat
Local studies 24 24 42 42 200 200 349 349 agencies, prosecutors, 13
Trafficking and
victims service
Slavery Task
providers in CA
Force, 2007
Arrest data in 21
O’Leary and
Local studies 71 243 124 424 6,903 23,648 12,020 41,179 Chicago and expert
Howard, 2001
interviews
Interviews with
Thukral. and
Local studies 1 1 3 3 46 54 80 93 service providers in 22
Ditmore, 2005
New York City
Gragg et al, 2007;

Local studies - - - - - - 93,174 93,174 CSEC cases in NY 32
Curtis et al., 2008
Estimates from 9
Shared Hope
U.S. cities based on
Local studies - - - - - - 16,894 16,894 International, 31
law enforcement and
2009
service provider data
Juvenile prostitution
arrests and service
Local studies 37 62 263 438 1,767 2,960 12,557 20,913 Boyer, 2008 32
provider survey in
WA
Median of
35 35 61 61 1,767 1,993 12,020 16,894
local studies
Human Trafficking
Nation data Kyckelhahn,
Reporting System
collection/sur 175 175 305 305 921 921 1,604 1,604 Beck, and Cohen, 1
(HTRS) data on
vey 2009
alleged cases
Nation data
Farrell,
37 37 66 66 412 412 733 733 McDevitt, and 9
vey enforcement agencies
Fahy, 2008
Nation data
Newton, Dutch,
- - - - 16 160 29 288 and Cummings, 10
vey enforcement agencies
2008
Nation data
National UCR data Puzzanchera,
collection/sur
639 639 1,114 1,114 - - - - (FBI arrests for Adams, and 23
vey prostitution charges) Kang, 2008
24
Counts of victims19
victims20 Tech.
note
Nation data
collection/sur 175 175 305 305 412 412 733 733
vey
Multiple economic
Economic indicators of 15
indicator - - - - 3,742 3,742 - - countries in Eastern Clawson, 2007 18
studies Europe and 8 in
Latin America
Field research,
Economic
interviews with
indicator - - - - 972 972 1,728 1,728 Kara, 2009 19
victims and experts,
studies
and official data
Median of
economic
- - - - 2,357 2,357 1,728 1,728
indicators
studies
Field research in
Other sources - - - - 1,500 - - - Acharya, 2006 20
Mexico City
Field research in the
Estes and
Other sources - - - - 89,081 118,770 50,108 66,808 U.S., Canada, and 26
Weiner, 2001
Mexico
National survey of Edwards et al,
Other sources - - - - 498,571 498,571 938,487 938,487 29
adolescents 2006
A national study of
Other sources - - - - 36,620 169,636 107,706 301,636 Greene, 1999 33
street youth
25
The following description describes the data from the 28 studies presented in Table 6 by the source
of information from which counts and estimates were drawn.
Median counts of 100 foreign child sex trafficking and 176 domestic child sex trafficking
victims were derived from counts of federal prosecutions in which trafficking is a leading offense.
Because only a minority of trafficking investigations result in sufficient evidence for a prosecution,
the number of victims identified in federal prosecution data is quite low. We cannot derive a national
estimate from the federal prosecution data since it is unlikely that the human trafficking cases
brought forward to federal prosecution are representative of the national population of human
trafficking upon which multipliers could appropriately be applied.

Medians of 19 foreign child sex trafficking and 32 domestic child sex trafficking victims were
identified in the data on cases opened by federal law enforcement agencies.21 Across the studies,
numbers of victims ranged from a low 10 victims (foreign and domestic) identified in the Civil
Rights Division data to a high of 132 victims in cases investigated by ICE. Although separate law
enforcement agencies contribute data to each study, these numbers should not be combined.
Because we cannot determine the proportion or distribution of human trafficking cases that would
come to the attention of federal law enforcement agencies, or estimate the number of cases that are
investigated by multiple agencies, we cannot estimate the number of victims that exist nationally but
were not counted in these sources.

A median of 16 foreign child sex trafficking victims and 42 domestic child sex trafficking
victims was identified in reports on victims served by agencies that have been commissioned by the
federal government to provide services to alleged victims of severe forms of trafficking. Because
these agencies provide different kinds of services, victims may be served by more than one agency,
and as a result some victims may be double counted across these studies. Since we do not have data
on the proportion of trafficking victims that gain the attention of these agencies, we cannot produce
a national estimate based on these data.
21 The main sources of data for which we identified counts and estimates of human trafficking victims are federal law
enforcement data, federal victim service data, media reports, local studies, national data collection and large-scale
surveys, and economic indicator studies. When multiple studies were available for each main source type, we report the
average minimum count and estimate. For some sources, we could calculate a range of counts or estimates based on the
available data. We present minimum counts and estimates in summary tables and provide the available ranges within the
main report Tables 4–6. Data from other sources of information are included in Tables 4–6 in the main report but are
excluded in the summary table because they represent a mixture of other source types that cannot be classified and thus,
concerns about double counting prevent their inclusion in summaries.
26
Media reports
Between 5 and 10 foreign, and 10 and 16 domestic, child sex trafficking victims were
identified through a survey of newspaper articles over a seven-year period. Because not all of the
discovered trafficking cases get mentioned in public media, we have no reliable data on the
proportion of trafficking incidents that end up in the public media and therefore cannot produce an
estimate based on these data.
Local studies
Medians of 35 foreign child sex trafficking victims and 61 domestic child sex trafficking
victims were identified in local human trafficking studies. State data were gathered in California,
Minnesota, and Washington. Additionally, researchers in New York City and Chicago identified
child sex trafficking victims through local studies. We have produced national estimates by
extrapolating from the local and state data provided by these sources to a national estimate based on
population size. Two additional local studies provided estimates of child sex trafficking victims. A
study by Shared Hope collected data and estimated the magnitude of child sex trafficking in nine
cities. Additionally, a study on the commercial sexual exploitation of children in New York provided
estimates of child sex trafficking, which have been included in this review.
National data collection and survey

Averages of 175 foreign child sex trafficking victims and 205 domestic child sex trafficking
victims were identified in data from local law enforcement agencies, either in national data collection
programs (UCR) or large-scale surveys. Three of the sources relied on sampling procedures where
enough information was provided that national estimates could be derived. The sampling
procedures of these sources make them the most reliable for quantifying the number of trafficking
victims in the United States. However, they do not account for hidden victims who have not been
identified. No estimation was conducted for UCR data because it contains information from all law
enforcement agencies in the United States participating in the national crime-reporting program.
A median estimate of 2,357 foreign child sex trafficking and 1,728 domestic child sex
trafficking victims were identified in two studies based on an economic model that relies on
international macroeconomic indicators. No actual victims were identified for the processes of
producing these estimates.
Four additional sources contained information about potential child sex trafficking victims
from which we could derive national estimates. We did not combine these estimates into our
summaries, however, because different sources of information were used to gather data that likely
contain double counting and at the same time are sufficiently different that it would be inappropriate
to calculate median estimates across these studies. It is important to note, however, that the
estimates produced from these other sources of information are generally much higher than other
types of data we reviewed. That is largely because they capture data on risky behavior, some of
27
which we believe may meet the definition of human trafficking specified in the TVPA. In the future,
these sources of information may serve as useful tools for estimating human trafficking
victimization, particularly if the data could be improved to more specifically measure characteristics
of sex trafficking.
Discussion and Limitations of Findings

Based on our analysis of the existing research on human trafficking victimization in the
United States presented in Tables 4–6, we can summarize the minimum median counts and
estimates for all types of human trafficking within source types. As we noted earlier, presenting the
counts and estimates identified within specific source types illustrates the strengths and limitations
of various sources of data. As illustrated in the summary table below, federal prosecution and law
enforcement data captures information on far fewer victims of human trafficking than local studies
or national data collection programs that seek out information on victims who may not have come
to the attention of federal authorities.
Table 7 includes the median minimum counts and estimates of victims identified across
seven main sources of information.22 These figures represent an annualized stock of human
trafficking victims identified through different sources.
22Detailed calculations for all counts and estimates, including the justification for the use of particular multipliers are
outlined in technical notes found in Appendices E and F.
28
Table 7: Summary of Median Minimum Known Counts and Estimates of Human Trafficking
Identified in Assessed Data Sources, with number of assessed data sources (n)
Total Human
Labor Trafficking Adult Sex Trafficking Child Sex Trafficking
Trafficking Victims
Data Type Counts Estimates Counts Estimates Counts Estimates Counts Estimates
Federal prosecution 25 - 68 - 276 - 369 -
data (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=2) (n=0 ) (n=2 ) (n=0 )
Federal law 37 - 90 - 146 - 273 -
enforcement data (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=4 ) (n=0 ) (n=4 ) (n=0 ) (n=4 ) (n=0 )
Federal victim 50 - 179 - 58 - 287 -
service data (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=3 ) (n=0 ) (n=3 ) (n=0 )
57 - 35 - 26 - 118 -
Media reports
(n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 )
264 3,191 165 5,231 96 13,787 525 22,209
Local studies
(n=2 ) (n=2 ) (n=4 ) (n=4 ) (n=5 ) (n=7 ) (n=5 ) (n=7 )
National data 381 1,349 675 2,672 480 1,145 1,526 5,166
collection/surveys (n=2 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 ) (n=3 )
Economic indicator - 46,849 - 9,533 - 4,085 - 60,467
studies (n=0 ) (n=1 ) (n=0 ) (n=2 ) (n=0 ) (n=2 ) (n=0 ) (n=2 )
Counts represent the actual number of victims identified in individual studies. Estimates represent
the annualized national statistics that could be derived, where possible, from counts. For each type
of trafficking (labor trafficking, adult sex trafficking, and child sex trafficking), we calculated the
median minimum and maximum counts of domestic and foreign trafficking victims identified in
existing studies. In some cases, we could not compute ranges because sources of information
provided single counts. Where appropriate, we applied multipliers to individual counts to derive
annualized national estimates based on known counts for each type of trafficking.23
We caution readers that they should not attempt to sum the total counts and estimates of
victims across source types. Double counting of victims between different sources of information
likely would overinflate counts and estimates if the totals for the summary rows were combined.
Instead, conclusions about what we know about the extent of human trafficking victimization
should be drawn within categories of sources of information. We found the largest annual counts of
victims in data from national data collection or survey-based studies. The largest estimated numbers
of human trafficking victims, however, came from local studies in which national estimates were
derived or from studies relying on economic indicators rather than estimations from counts of
identified victims.
23 This will enable an estimate of the extent of double counting, which in turn will allow researchers add up data from
different sources.
29
Even within source categories, we found great variation in ranges of known counts and
estimates of trafficking victims across different studies. In some cases, the range of known or
estimated victims spans thousands of victims. These ranges were largest for counts and estimates of
adult and child sex trafficking victims, an area where there is more research on potential human
trafficking victimization, particularly local and regional studies, but the conclusions that can be
drawn about the prevalence of human trafficking victimization vary significantly across studies. The
wide ranges of human trafficking victims identified in existing research illustrate the inaccuracy that
results from significant gaps in our knowledge about victimization.
Additionally, because no information on counts or estimates of human trafficking
victimization was available for a number of the specific venues where trafficking is believed to
occur, it is likely that the results presented here offer an incomplete picture of the potential
prevalence of human trafficking victimization. In venues for which specific data were found, the
ranges typically rely on one or two sources. Only in rare cases (street prostitution, for example) do
they rely on more. The absence of victim counts within specific venues impedes our understanding
of the prevalence of human trafficking, particularly labor trafficking, which is less likely to come to
the attention of law enforcement agents, who are generally better equipped to identify and
investigate cases of sex trafficking and often lack the time and resources needed to investigate these
labor intensive cases.
The analysis of existing research and presentation of ranges of potential victims of human
trafficking across known types of trafficking represents a first attempt to draw some conclusions
about the scope of human trafficking in the United States based on existing research. The calculated
estimates for all types of trafficking are the products of multiple steps, featuring numerous
limitations, including derivatives that were in some cases based on less reliable data, and readers
should approach and use this information cautiously. We encourage readers to consult the technical
notes that correspond to each table, found in Appendix E. We have done our best to produce
estimates that reflect what we deemed the most reliable pieces of literature and victim count, but it is
possible that the ranges of victims we identified across different types of human trafficking are more
reflective of the mathematical processes that we used to derive the estimates than the actual scope of
trafficking victimization.
We should note some additional limitations for the counts and estimates presented in Tables
4–6. Data from prosecutors, law enforcement, and victim service providers are based on cases that
have come to the attention of these agencies. It is a well-documented fact that victims do not easily
draw the attention of any of these groups, but we do not know what proportion of victims actually
will be reported in these data sources. If there was an estimate of the unreported victims, as in the
case of rape victims from the National Crime Victimization Survey, for example, we could apply that
estimate to obtain a more accurate estimate of the number of trafficking victims.
Additionally, the estimates in the table reflect the number of victims at a single point in time
(all calculations are annualized where the original data reflected multiple years or a portion of a year).
Traffickers recruit and bring new victims of human trafficking into trafficking networks on an
ongoing basis. At the same time, some victims are able to leave their victimizers and the conditions
30
of human trafficking through rescue, escape, or other means. Because we do not have reliable
estimates of the flow of victims into and out of their victimization situations, sometimes referred to
as a “churn rate,” we cannot reflect those changes over time. For example, if we knew that a new
victim of human trafficking became victimized for each victim in the United States each year, and
that 50 percent of the victims were able to leave their victimization each year, we could adjust the
estimates by increasing them by 50 percent each year.
It is important to note when using these estimates that they do not represent the total
population of human trafficking victims in the United States, as they are all derived from identified
populations of victims. Until new research is conducted that better addresses the data limitations
identified in this report, all attempts at identifying a national estimate will be subject to legitimate
criticism that they do not represent an accurate count. There are also a number of measurement
complications with official statistics of human trafficking victims identified by government agencies,
particularly arrest and prosecution data. Though the federal law may be standardized across the
entire country, we know that the interpretation and implementation of that law varies a considerable
degree. Therefore, the estimates derived from these reports, the most reliable of all existing literature
in which to derive a victim estimate, may be a better indicator of law enforcement and court activity,
rather than of the number of trafficking victims that exist in the United States. Research reveals that
many local law enforcement officials are under the impression that trafficking does not exist in their
communities (Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahy, 2008; Newton, Mulcahy and Martin, 2008). Therefore,
recognition of suspects and subsequently victims is naturally going to be underrepresented in law
enforcement data. Estimations should not be used to make broad generalizations but rather to shed
light on the emerging awareness and enforcement on human trafficking.
31
Recommendations
Recommendations for Improvement of Data Collection

Through the process of assessing existing studies of human trafficking, we identified a
number of gaps and limitations of the existing data sets. The following recommendations are made
to help improve the quality and usefulness of current and future data about human trafficking in the
United States.
• Enhance the scope and quality of data reported in U.S. government publications that
routinely provide information on human trafficking victims or suspects (i.e., U.S.
Attorney General’s Assessment, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division data, Heath and
Human Services T-Visa Certification data). In most of these sources of data, it cannot be
determined for example how many victims of labor trafficking were foreign adults versus
domestic adults. Many official sources of data track incidents, cases, or prosecutions. Using
this data to measure the extent of human trafficking requires more detailed information
about the number of victims and offenders per case, incident, arrest, etc. In the present
study, we calculated numbers of victims based on known multipliers, but detailed
information on victims in federal cases would greatly improve the quality of these
calculations.
Additionally, it is important for law enforcement and victim service data to begin to capture
information on the pathways victims have been forced to take into, and in some cases out
of, their victimization. Capturing more detailed information about the venues in which
victims were identified or report victimization would be one important step in that direction.
Developing more refined categories of information about those cases that have come to the
attention and are investigated by government officials would at least provide the opportunity
for richer analysis of officially reported cases. Additional data that are missing from official
reports and that would dramatically improve the current estimates include, for example, the
duration of trafficking conditions until victims were recovered, and the amount of overlap
between equivalent government agencies or non-governmental organizations in handling
trafficking cases (i.e. how many agencies are involved in handling the same case).24
• Enhance potential sources of data where information on human trafficking is

currently not being captured. Reports and data on exploitive labor conditions often do
not report the scope of exploitation in particular industries, and when statistics are provided
it is generally not possible to determine if identified victims are classified as human
trafficking victims. Providing more detailed information about the circumstances of
exploitation would be useful in helping us estimate what proportion of exploited workers in
24 The term “coercion” means (A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; (B) any scheme,
plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or
physical restraint against any person; or (C) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
32
any particular industry have indications of trafficking and thus might be counted as
“potential” trafficking victims.
Data on migration and visas is another area ripe for the collection of additional information.
We can calculate statistics about the total number of visas given for particular sectors of
work (e.g. agriculture), and there are some statistics about what proportion of foreign
workers in these industries do not have legal status to work (e.g. a visa), but this is still not a
sufficient measure of how many of these victims are trafficked or find themselves in a
circumstance of human trafficking.
• Address definitional issues. Despite the potentially unifying use of the definition of
human trafficking outlined in the TVPA, there is still a great deal of disagreement about
what factual circumstances and elements constitute human trafficking. A few examples that
we identified through the course of our review are provided below.
• Does child prostitution require inducement by a third party (e.g. pimp)? If a child
exchanges sex for money or other things of value and no one else profits from that
exchange, is this a severe form of human trafficking?
• Is child pornography or adult pornography by force, fraud, or coercion a severe form
of sex trafficking? Does this meet the “commercial sex act” element of the federal
legislation? Federal prosecutors seem to suggest it does not, but advocates in human
trafficking want to count these cases as human trafficking.
• Would a commercial sex act encompass sex in exchange for shelter or drugs, for
example, or is it defined strictly as a monetary exchange?
• What extent of force, fraud, or coercion is needed for an exploitive or unfair labor
situation to be classified as human trafficking?
Recommendations for Future Research

In addition to recommending changes and additions to human trafficking data that are
already collected, we offer a series of broader recommendations for future research that would
improve our ability to understand the scope of human trafficking victimization in the United States.
• Increase basic research on the characteristics of human trafficking. One of the most
striking limitations of using official data to estimate the victims of human trafficking is the
fact that we lack basic research in the field that would help us identify the venues in which
we should expect to find trafficking victims and the type of information that would help us
generate more accurate multipliers for estimation modeling. For example, we may know the
total number of foreign migrant workers that enter the United States, but we lack reliable
information on what proportion of workers across different industries are at risk for or are
33
actual victims of human trafficking. Studies that utilize information from victims or their
informants (e.g. case workers) would begin to address the basic research needs.
• Conduct city saturation studies. Because human trafficking victims are believed to be
hidden, the use of official statistics will always undercount the scope of the problem.
Intensive studies of human trafficking, where researchers saturated potential venues for
human trafficking to identify all possible sources of information across a stratified sampling
of U.S. cities would improve our knowledge of the distribution of victims across different
venues and provide critical information about how often and under what conditions victims
of human trafficking are identified by law enforcement or victim services agencies. Data
could include interviews with law enforcement, service providers, nongovernmental
organizations, labor and immigration advocacy groups, and others with knowledge of human
trafficking in each sampled community to identify areas and venues where human trafficking
may be occurring in their community. From previous research, we know victims of human
trafficking have been found in a number of different types of places and venues. These
include: brothels, households, hotels, escort services, street prostitution networks, truck
stops, strip clubs, pornography industries, work camps, agricultural industries, domestic
workers, construction, migrant workers, factories, landscaping, institutional care, retail sales,
and restaurants. Although this list is not exhaustive, it represents some of the places where
we know victims of human trafficking have been found. Within each sampled community,
these venues should be saturated with research, including observations of, interviews with,
and surveys from participants to try to identify how many victims exist in each potential
venue in each city. This research would help us develop working counts of victims from
intensive studies of populations in each venue and provide critical information about the
characteristics of human trafficking victimization across the venues that could inform future
estimation strategies.
• Conduct a feasibility study for a national victimization survey of human trafficking

victims. Although the logistics of such a study would be challenging, a well-designed study
that would identify a systematic estimate of unidentified victims is critical for understanding
the nature of human trafficking victimization and developing statistical tools to help us
understand the degree to which officially reported victims of human trafficking
underrepresent the total victim population.
• Improve the collection of information on human trafficking by law enforcement,

prosecutors, and courts. As provided for in the most recent reauthorization of the TVPA,
steps should be taken to have human trafficking added to the ongoing normal data being
collected as part of the UCR national crime reporting program. Although the exact vehicles
for this collection need to be determined, it would be very helpful to begin to develop a plan
for acquiring this data. Adding human trafficking to the crimes collected by the National
Incident Reporting System (NIBRS) would seem to be the easiest approach requiring the
fewest changes in infrastructure. However, this system is not utilized by many large law
enforcement agencies, which poses an additional challenge. Adding human trafficking to the
34
crime classifications in the Crime in The United States Report produced annual by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation would take more structural changes but would mean
collecting data from a much larger number of agencies.
One ancillary benefit of this national data collection strategy would be additional training for
law enforcement officers across the country to recognize and report cases of human
trafficking and thus provide services to many more victims than are served today. This
strategy has been successful in other crime categories, most notably the collection and
reporting of hate crimes.
Until the UCR is modified to include a crime classification for human trafficking, law
enforcement agencies throughout the country will continue to input information into the
Human Trafficking Reporting System (HTRS), a data collection project sponsored by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Expansion of HTRS to law enforcement agencies outside of the
federally funded human trafficking task force would provide a broader picture of the human
trafficking cases that do gain the attention of law enforcement. Additionally, linking data
from law enforcement captured by the HTRS to other sources of information on identified
victims would help us understand the similarities and differences between victims identified
by law enforcement and those identified by other types of victim service providers or
national hotlines. Examples of other such sources of data might include the National Human
Trafficking Resource Center Hotline or the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children Hotline, and victim service data such as the information collected by grantees from
the Office of Victims of Crime or the Department of Health and Human Services.
Where appropriate, include measures of potential human trafficking in existing
national data collection systems. Human trafficking is a phenomenon that cuts across
many different disciplinary areas of inquiry. As such, we must look outside the traditional
bounds of criminal justice to build on strengths in nationally representative data collections
in other areas, such as public health or victimization in the workplace.
For example, the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) monitors priority health risk
behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death, disability, and social problems
among youth and adults in the United States. The YRBS includes a national school-based
survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state,
territorial, tribal, and local surveys conducted by state, territorial, and local education and
health agencies and tribal governments. It is conducted every two years during the spring
semester and provides data representative of ninth- through twelfth-grade students in public
and private schools throughout the United States. Included in the YRBS are eight questions
under the category of “Sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy, and STDs,
including HIV infection.” Questions probing potential sex trafficking victimization could be
included in this survey.
Similarly, the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) is an ongoing national survey
conducted by the Department of Labor, which examines the demographic, employment, and
health characteristics of the U.S. crop labor force. Through a random sample of farms,
35
between 1,500 and 4,000 workers are interviewed each year, in three seasonal cycles. Some
of the questions in this survey inquire into the working conditions, e.g. access to water, type
and quality of on-site housing, etc. Questions probing potential labor trafficking
victimization could be included in this survey.
36
References
Antonopoulou, Christina, and Nicoletta Skoufalos. 2006. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder in victims of trafficking. Annals of General Psychiatry 5(Suppl 1): 120.
Bales, Kevin. 2004. Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States. Washington: Free the Slaves
and Berkeley: Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
Bales, Kevin. 2005. Understanding Global Slavery. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Belser, Patrick, Michaelle de Cock, and Farhad Mehran. 2005. ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour
in the World. Geneva, International Labour Office.
Clawson, Heather, Kevonne Small, Ellen Go, and Bradley Myles. 2003. Needs Assessment for Service
Providers and Trafficking Victims. Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice.
Clawson, Heather, M. Layne, and Kevonne Small. 2006. Estimating Human Trafficking into the United
States: Development of a Methodology. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Farrell, Amy, Jack McDevitt, and Stephanie Fahy. 2008. Understanding and Improving Local
Law Enforcement Response to Human Trafficking. Report Submitted to the National Institute of
Justice.
Government Accountability Office. 2006. Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed
to Enhance U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad. Washington: U.S. Government Accounting
Office.
Gozdziak, Elzbieta, and Micah N. Bump. 2008. Data and Research on Human Trafficking: Bibliography
of Research-Based Literature. Institute for the Study of International Migration, Walsh School of
Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
Kutnick, Bruce, Patrick Belser, Gergana Danailova-Trainor. 2007. Methodologies for Global and National
Estimation of Human Trafficking Victims: Current and Future Approaches. Geneva: International
Labour Organization.
Kyckelhahn, Tracey, Allen J. Beck, and Thomas H. Cohen. 2009. Characteristics of Suspected Human
Trafficking Incidents, 2007-08. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Laczko, Frank. 2005. Data and Research on Human Trafficking: A Global Survey. Geneva: International
Organization for Migration.
Newton, Phyllis, Timothy M. Mulcahy, and Susan E. Martin. 2008. Finding Victims of Human
Trafficking. Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
37
Office of the Attorney General. 2004. Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons 2003. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of the Attorney General. 2005. Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons 2004. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.
O’Neill Richard, Amy R. 1999. International Trafficking in Women to the United States: A Contemporary
Manifestation of Slavery and Organized Crime. Langley, VA: Center for the Study of Intelligence.
Small, Kevonne, William Adams, Colleen Owens, and Kevin Roland. 2008. A Report on Federally
Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
of 2000. Final report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Shively, Michael, Sarah Kuck Jalbert, Ryan Kling, William Rhodes, Peter Finn, Chris
Flygare, Laura Tierney, Dana Hunt, David Squires, Christina Dyous, Kristin Wheeler.
2008. Final Report on the Evaluation of the First Offender Prostitution Program. Report
submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act, P.L. 106-386, October 28, 2000. United
Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. 2006. Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns.
38
39
Review of Existing Estimates of Victims of Human Trafficking in the United
States and Recommendations for Improving Research and Measurement of
Human Trafficking
Appended materials
Appendix A: List of Assessed Sources
Appendix B: Assessment Criteria
Appendix C: Data Collection Methodology
Appendix D: Counts of Identified Sources Across Venues
Appendix E: Technical Notes for Data Tables 3–5
Appendix F: Technical Note on Calculations
40
Appendix A: List of Assessed Sources
Acharya, Arun Kumar. 2006. International Migration and Trafficking of Mexican Women to the
United States. In Trafficking and the Global Sex Industry, edited by Karen Beeks and Delila Amir.
Oxford: Lexington Books.
Albanese, Jay. 2007. Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: What Do We Know and What Do We Do
About It? Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Albanese, Jay, Jennifer Schrock Donnelly, and Talene Kelegian. 2004. Cases of Human Trafficking
in the United States: A Content Analysis of a Calendar Year in 18 Cities. International Journal of
Comparative Criminology 4, no. 1: 96-111.
Anderson, Bridget, and Julia O’Connell Davidson. 2002. Trafficking-A Demand Led Problem? A Multi-
Country Pilot. Stockholm: Save the Children.
Andolina Scott, Karen M. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report--Buffalo, New York.
Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Anti-Human Trafficking Unit: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2006. Trafficking in
Persons: Global Patterns.
Bales, Kevin. 1999. Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Bales, Kevin. 2001. Slavery is Big Business. in Slavery Today, edited by Auriana Ojeda. Farmington
Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Bales, Kevin. 2002. The Social Psychology of Modern Slavery. Scientific American, April. .
Bales, Kevin. 2004. Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States. Washington: Free the Slaves and
Berkeley: Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley.
Bales, Kevin. 2005. Tracking Modern Day Slavery. NIJ Journal 252: 29-30.
Bales, Kevin. 2005. Understanding Modern Day Slavery. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Bales, Kevin, and Steven Lize. 2005. Trafficking in Persons in the United States. Washington: National
Institute of Justice.
Batstone, David. 2007. Not For Sale: The Return of the Global Slave Trade and How We Can Fight It. New
York: HarperCollins.
Bauer, Mary. 2006. Beneath the Pines: Stories of Migrant Tree Planters. Montgomery, AL: Southern
Poverty Law Center.
41
Bauer, Mary. 2007. Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States. Montgomery, AL:
Southern Poverty Law Center.
Bayhi-Gennaro, Jennifer. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report--Baton Rouge/New
Orleans, Louisiana. Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Belser, Patrick. 2005. Forced Labour and Human Trafficking: Estimating the Profits. Geneva: International
Labour Office.
Berman, Jacqueline. 2006. The Left, the Right, and the Prostitute: The Making of U.S.
Antitrafficking in Persons Policy. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 14: 269-293.
Boxill, Nancy A., and Deborah J. Richardson. 2007. Ending Sex Trafficking of Children in Atlanta.
Affilia 22, no. 2: 138-149.
Boyer, Debra. 2008. Who Pays the Price? Assessment of Youth Involvement in Prostitution in Seattle. Seattle:
City of Seattle Human Services Department.
Brennan, Denise. 2005. Methodological Challenges in Research with Trafficked Persons: Tales from
the Field. International Migration 43, no. 1-2: 35-53.
Calcetas-Santos, Ofelia. 1998. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and
Child Pornography. Geneva: U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
Caldwell, Gillian, Steven Galster, and Nadia Steinzor. 1997. Crime & Servitude: An Expose of the
Traffic in Women for Prostitution from the Newly Independent States. Trends in Organized Crime
Summer 1998: 10-18.
California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery Task Force. 2007. Human Trafficking in
California: Final Report of the Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery Task Force 2007.
Cameron, Sally and Edward Newman. 2008. Trafficking in Humans: Social, Cultural, Political Dimensions.
New York: United Nations University Press.
Center for the Advancement of Human Rights, Florida State University. 2003. Florida Responds to
Human Trafficking.
Clawson, Heather J. 2007. Estimating Human Trafficking into the United States: Development of a
Methodology Final Phase Two Report. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Clawson, Heather J., Nicole Dutch, and Megan Cummings. 2006. Law Enforcement Response to Human
Trafficking and the Implications for Victims: Current Practices and Lessons Learned. Washington: National
Institute of Justice.
Clawson, Heather J., Mary Layne, and Kevonne Small. 2006. Estimating Human Trafficking into the
United States: Development of a Methodology. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
42
Clawson, Heather J., Kevonne Small, Ellen Go, and Bradley Myles. 2003. Needs Assessment for Service
Providers and Trafficking Victims. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Commission on the Status of Women. 2003. Human Trafficking and Child Prostitution Task Force Report.
Compa, Lance A.. 2004. Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants.
Washington: Human Rights Watch.
Conyers Jr., John. 2007. The 2005 Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act: Why
Congress Acted to Expand Protections to Immigrant Victims. Violence Against Women 13: 457.
Curran, Sara R. 2006. Human Trafficking: A Spotlight on Washington State. Seattle: Human Trafficking
Task Force.
Dalla, Rochelle L., Yan Xia, and Heather Kennedy. 2003. You Just Give Them What They Want
and Pray They Don’t Kill You. Violence Against Women 9, no. 11: 1367-1394.
De Cock, Michaelle. 2007. Directions for National and International Data Collection on Forced Labor.
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Denisova, Tatyana. 2001. Trafficking in Women and Children for Purposes of Sexual Exploitation:
The Criminological Aspect. Trends in Organized Crime 6, no. 3-4: 30-36.
Derks, Annuska. 2000. Combating Trafficking in South-East Asia: A Review of Policy and Programme
Responses. Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
Destefano, Anthony M. 2006. U.S. Efforts Against Human Trafficking Criticized. Newsday, August
15.
Dimitrova, Dessislava, and Andrew Rachlin.2007. Marshaling Every Resource: State and Local Responses to
Human Trafficking. Princeton: Policy Research Institute for the Region.
Doezema, Jo. 1998. Forced to Choose: Beyond the Voluntary v. Forced Prostitution Dichotomy. In
Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition, edited by Kamala Kempadoo and Jo Doezema.
New York: Routledge.
Edwards, Jessica M., B.J. Iritani, and D.D. Hallfors. 2006. Prevalence and Correlates of Exchanging
Sex for Drugs or Money Among Adolescents in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Infections 82:
354-358.
Egan, Rachel. 2006. Trafficking in Women and Children (Part 1): A Literature Review of
Contributory Factors. Community Safety Journal 5: 4-11.
Estes, Richard, and Neil Alan Weiner. 2001. The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work.
43
Farley, Melissa. 2004. Bad for the Body, Bad for the Heart: Prostitution Harms Women Even if
Legalized or Decriminalized. Violence Against Women 10, no. 10: 1087-1125.
Farr, Kathryn. 2005. Sex Trafficking: The Global Market in Women and Children. New York: Worth
Publishers.
Farrell, Amy, Jack McDevitt, and Stephanie Fahy. 2008. Understanding and Improving Law Enforcement
Responses to Human Trafficking. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Finckenauer, James O., and Jennifer Schrock. 2000. Human Trafficking: A Growing Criminal Market in
the United States. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Finckenauer, James O., and Ko-lin Chin. 2007. NIJ Special Report: Asian Transnational Organized Crime
and its Impact on the United States. Washington: National Institute of Justice. Finckenauer, Jim, and Min
Lui. 2007. State Law and Human Trafficking.
Friedman, Sara Ann. 2005. Who Is There to Help Us? How the System Fails Sexually Exploited Girls in the
US: Examples from Four American Cities. Brooklyn: ECPAT International.
Friedrich, Amy G., Anna N. Meyer, and Deborah G. Perlman. 2006. The Trafficking in Persons Report:
Strengthening a Diplomatic Tool. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public
Affairs.
Giusta, Marina Della, Maria Laura di Tommaso, and Steinar Strøm. 2008. A Specific Segment of the
Supply Side: Sexually Exploited Trafficked Women. In Sex Markets: A Denied Industry. New York:
Routledge.
Gozdziak, Elzbieta M., and Elizabeth A. Collett. 2005. Research on Human Trafficking in North
America: A Review of the Literature. International Migration 43 (1-2): 99-128.
Gragg, Frances, Ian Petta, Haidee Bernstein, Karla Eisen, and Liz Quinn. 2007. New York Prevalence
Study of Commercially Sexually Exploited Children: Final Report. Rensselaer: New York State Office of
Children and Family Services.
Greene, Joseph R. 2001. U.S. and Multinational Coalition Disrupts Migrant Smuggling Operations.
Global Issues 6, no. 2: 12-14.
Greene, Jody M., Susan T. Ennett, and Christopher L. Ringwalt. 1999. Prevalence and Correlates of
Survival Sex Among Runaway and Homeless Youth. American Journal of Public Health 89, no. 9: 1406-
1409.
Harrison, Deborah L. 2001. Victims of Human Trafficking or Victims of Research? University of East
Anglia.
Hay, Nicole. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report --Dallas, Texas Vancouver, WA:
Shared Hope International.
44
Haynes, Dina Francesca. 2004. Used, Abused, Arrested, and Deported: Extending Immigration
Benefits to Protect the Victims of Trafficking and to Secure the Prosecution of Traffickers. Human
Rights Quarterly 26, no. 2: 221-272.
Henschel, Barbara. 2003. The Assessment of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: A Review of
Methodologies. Rome: Understanding Children’s Work Project.
Hodge, David R. 2008. Sexual Trafficking in the United States: A Domestic Problem with
Transnational Dimensions. Social Work 53, no. 2: 143-152.
Hopper, Elizabeth K. 2004. Under Identification of Human Trafficking Victims in the United
States. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation 5, no. 2: 125-136.
Hosey, Jeannie, and Dotti Clune. 2002. We Can Do Better: Helping Prostituted Women and Girls in Grand
Rapids Make Healthy Choices. Grand Rapids, MI: The Nokimis Foundation.
Hughes, Donna M. 1999. Pimps and Predators on the Internet: Globalizing Sexual Exploitation of Women and
Children. Kingston, RI: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.
Hughes, Donna M. 2000. The ‘Natasha’ Trade: The Transnational Shadow Market of Trafficking in
Women. Journal of International Affairs 53, no. 2: 625-651.
Hughes, Donna M. 2001. The ‘Natasha’ Trade: Transnational Sex Trafficking. NIJ Journal, 246: 9-15.
Hughes, Donna M. 2002. The Use of New Communications and Information Technologies for the
Sexual Exploitation of Women and Children. Hastings Women’s Law Journal 13, no. 1: 129-222.
Hughes, Donna M. 2004. Best Practices to Address the Demand Side of Sex Trafficking. University of
Rhode Island.
Human Rights Center. 2005. Freedom Denied: Forced Labor in California. Berkeley: University of
California, Berkeley.
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center. 2005. Fact Sheet: Distinctions Between Human Smuggling and
Human Trafficking. Washington: Department of State.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2006. The Crime of Human Trafficking: A Law Enforcement
Guide to Identification and Investigation. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
International Labour Office. 2005. A Global Alliance Against Forced Labor: Global Report Under the
Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. International Labor
Conference: 93rd Session: Report I (B).
International Labour Organization. 2008. General Report of the 18th International Conference of Labour
Statisticians. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
45
International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour. 2002. Every Child Counts: New Global
Estimates on Child Labor. Geneva: International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour.
International Organization for Migration. 2008. Handbook on Performance Indicators for Counter-
Trafficking Projects. Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
Jahic, Galma, and James Finckenauer. 2005. Representations and Misrepresentations of Human
Trafficking. Trends in Organized Crime, 8, no. 3: 24-40.
Jakiel, Sarah. 2008. Training, Technical Assistance, and Strategic Planning Program, Polaris Project: Annual
Report – Year 1. Washington DC: Polaris Project.
Jakiel, Sarah. 2008. Annual Report – 2008: National Human Trafficking Resource Center Data. Washington
D.C.: Polaris Project.
James, Jennifer, and Jane Meyerding. 1977. Early Sexual Experience and Prostitution. American
Journal of Psychiatry 134, no. 12: 1381-1385.
Kandathil, Rosy. 2005. Global Sex Trafficking and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000:
Legislative Responses to the Problem of Modern Slavery. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 12, no.
10: 87-113.
Kangaspunta, Kristiina. 2003. Mapping the Inhuman Trade: Preliminary Findings of the Database
on Trafficking in Human Beings. Forum on Crime and Society 3, no. 1-2: 81-103.
Kara, Siddharth. 2009. Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Kelly, Liz. 2005. ‘You Can Find Anything You Want’: A Critical Reflection on Research on
Trafficking in Persons Within and into Europe. International Migration: Data 43, no. 1-2: 235-265.
Kennedy, M. Alexis, and Nicole Joey Pucci. 2007. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking--Las Vegas Assessment
Report. Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Klain, Eva J. 1999. Prostitution of Children and Child-Sex Tourism: An Analysis of Domestic and International
Responses. Washington: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.
Klueber, Sherilyn Ann. 2003. Trafficking in Human Beings: Law Enforcement Response. Unpublished
master’s thesis.
Kruks, Gabe. 1991. Gay and Lesbian Homeless/Street Youth: Special Issues and Concerns. Journal of
Adolescent Health 12, no. 7: 515-518.
Kutnick, Bruce, Patrick Belser, and Gergana Danailova-Trainor. 2007. Methodologies for Global and
National Estimation of Human Trafficking Victims: Current and Future Approaches. Geneva: International
Labour Organization.
46
Kyckelhahn, Tracey, Allen J. Beck, and Thomas H. Cohen. 2009. Characteristics of Suspected Human
Trafficking Incidents, 2007-08. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Laczko, Frank. 2002. Human Trafficking: The Need for Better Data.
http://www.migrationinformation.org.
Laczko, Frank, and Marco A. Gramegna. 2003. Developing Better Indicators of Human Trafficking.
The Brown Journal of World Affairs 10, No. 1: 179-194.
Leuchtag, Alice. 2004. Sex Slavery Must be Eradicated. In Slavery Today, edited by Auriana Ojeda.
Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Lee, Maggy., editor. 2007. Human Trafficking. Devon, United Kingdom: Willan Publishing.
Logan, T.K. 2007. Human Trafficking in Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Mabrey, Daniel J. 2003. Human Smuggling from China. Crime and Justice International 19, no. 71: 5-11.
Mameli, Peter. 2002. Stopping the Illegal Trafficking of Human Beings: How Transnational Police
Work Can Stem the Flow of Forced Prostitution. Crime, Law & Social Change 38: 67-80.
McClanahan, Susan F., Gary M. McClelland, Karen M. Abram, and Linda A. Teplin. 1999. Pathways
into Prostitution Among Female Jail Detainees and Their Implications for Mental Health Services.
Psychiatric Services 50, no. 12: 1606-1613.
McDonald, William. 2004. Traffic Counts, Symbols, and Agendas: A Critique of the Campaign
Against the Trafficking of Human Beings. International Review of Victimology 11: 143-176.
Mehta, Kala, Susan M. Gabbard, Vanessa Barrat, Melissa Lewis, Daniel Carroll, and Richard Mines.
2000. A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers: Findings from the National
Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1997-1998. Washington: Department of Labor.
Miko, Francis T. 2006. Trafficking in Persons: The U.S. and International Response. Washington:
Congressional Research Service.
Miko, Francis T. and Grace (Jea-Hyun) Park. 2002. Trafficking in Women and Children: The U.S. and
International Response. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
Minnesota Office of Justice Programs. 2008. Human Trafficking in Minnesota: A Report to the Minnesota
Legislature. St. Paul: Department of Public Safety.
Misol, Lisa. 2008. On the Margins of Profit: Rights at Risk in the Global Economy.Washington: Human
Rights Watch.
Mizus, Marisa, Maryam Moody, Cindy Privado, and Carol Anne Douglas. 2003. Germany, U.S. Receive
Most Sex-Trafficked Women. Farmington Hills, MI: Off Our Backs, Inc.
47
Monzini, Paola. 2004. “Trafficking in Women and Girls and the Involvement of Organised Crime in
Western and Central Europe.” International Review of Victimology 11, no. 1: 73-88.
Moossy, Robert. 2009. Sex Trafficking: Identifying Cases and Victims. NIJ Journal 262: 2-11.
Motivans, Mark, and Tracey Kyckelhahn. 2006. Federal Prosecution of Human Trafficking, 2001-2005.
Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Moxley-Goldsmith, Taya. 2005. Boys in the Basement: Male Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation.
Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.Mukasey, Michael B., Cybele K. Daley,
and David W. Hagy. 2007. Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: What Do We Know and What Do
We Do About It? Washington: Department of Justice.
Murray, Allison. Debt-bondage and Trafficking: Don’t Believe the Hype. In Global Sex Workers:
Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition, edited by Kamala Kempadoo and Jo Doezema. New York:
Routledge.
Neumeister, Larry. 2006. Brothel Raids Expose Problem of Slavery in US. Associated Press, September
3.
Newton, Phyllis J., Timothy M. Mulcahy, and Susan E. Martin. 2008. Finding Victims of Human
Trafficking. Bethesda, MD: National Opinion Research Center.
Nixon, Kendra, Leslie Tutty, Pamela Downe, Kelly Gorkoff, and Jane Ursel. 2002. The Everyday
Occurrence: Violence in the Lives of Girls Exploited Through Prostitution. Violence Against Women
8, no. 9: 1016-1043.
O’Briain, Muireann, Anke van den Borne, and Theo Noten. 2004. Joint East West Research on
Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes in Europe: The Sending Countries. Amsterdam: ECPAT.
Office for Victims of Crime, Training, and Technical Assistance Center. 2005. Trafficking Information
Management System – TIMS User’s Guide.
Office of the Attorney General. 2008. Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress and Assessment of the
US Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons Fiscal Year 2007.
Office of the Attorney General. 2004. Report to Congress from Attorney General John Ashcroft on U.S.
Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal Year 2003.
Office of the Attorney General. 2005. Report to Congress from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on
U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal Year 2004.
U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal Year 2005.
48
U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons in Fiscal Year 2006.
Office of the Attorney General. 2009. The Texas Response to Human Trafficking.
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. 2001. 2001 Trafficking in Persons Report.
O’Leary, Claudine, and Olivia Howard. 2001. The Prostitution of Women and Girls in Metropolitan Chicago:
A Preliminary Prevalence Report. Chicago: Center for Impact Research.
O’Neill Richard, Amy R. 1999. International Trafficking in Women to the United States: A Contemporary
Manifestation of Slavery and Organized Crime. Langley, VA: Center for the Study of Intelligence.
Oxfam America. 2004. Like Machines in the Fields: Workers Without Rights in American Agriculture.
Parent Watch, Free a Child, and Polaris Project. 2007. Travelling Sales Crews: What We Know so Far.
Paris, Catherine. 2007. Modern Day Slavery: Human Trafficking Revealed. Ocala, FL: Claddagh.
Pennbridge, Julia N., Thomas E. Freese, and Richard G. MacKenzie. 1992. “High Risk Behaviors
Among Male Street Youth in Hollywood, California.” AIDS Education and Prevention, Suppl: 24-33.
Phinney, Alison. 2001. Trafficking of Women and Children for Sexual Exploitation in the Americas.
Washington: Organization of American States and Pan American Health Organization.
Pier, Carol. 2001. Hidden in the Home: Abuse of Domestic Workers with Special Visas in the
United States. Human Rights Watch 13, no. 2: 1-56.
Priebe, Alexandra and Cristen Suhr. 2005. Hidden in Plain View: The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of
Girls in Atlanta. Atlanta: Atlanta Women’s Agenda.
The Protection Project. 2002. Human Rights Report on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and
Children: A Country by Country Report on Contemporary Forms of Slavery. Washington: Johns Hopkins
University.
49
The Protection Project. 2008. The Protection Project Review of the U.S. Department of State Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons: 2008 Trafficking in Persons Report. Washington: Johns Hopkins
University.
Raphael, Jody and Jessica Ashley. 2008. Domestic Sex Trafficking of Chicago Women and Girls. Chicago:
DePaul University College of Law.
Raymond, Janice G., and Donna M. Hughes. 2001. Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States:
International and Domestic Trends. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Reid, Joan A. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report--Clearwater, Florida. Vancouver,
WA: Shared Hope International.
Reinhardt, Emma Dorothy. 2001. Slavery in the United States is a Serious Problem. In Slavery Today,
edited by Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Rotherham-Borus, M.J., H.G. Meyer-Baylburg, M. Rosario, C. Koopman, C.S. Haignere, T.M.

Exner, M. Matthieu, R. Henderson, and R.S. Gruen. 1992. Lifetime Sexual Behaviors Among
Predominantly Minority Male Runaways and Gay/Bisexual Adolescents in New York City. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 4, Suppl: 42-43.
Savona, Ernesto U., and Sonia Stefanizzi, editors. 2007. Measuring Human Trafficking: Complexities and
Pitfalls. New York: Springer.
Schauer, Edward J., and Elizabeth M. Wheaton. 2006. “Sex Trafficking into the United States: A
Literature Review.” Criminal Justice RReview 31, no. 2: 146-169.
Sedlak, Andrea, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Dana Schultz. 2002. National Incidence
Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Throwaway Children.
Seelke, Clare Ribando, and Alison Siskin. 2008. Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress.
Washington: Congressional Research Service.
Shared Hope International. 2007. Demand: A Comparative Examination of Sex Tourism and Trafficking in
Jamaica, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Shively, Michael, Dana Hunt, Sarah Kuck, and Jazmin Kellis. 2007. Survey of Practitioners to Assess the
Local Impact of Transnational Crime. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Silbert, Mimi H., and Ayala M. Pines. 1982. Entrance into Prostitution. Youth and Society 13, no. 4:
471-500.
Silver, Karina. 2008. Hidden in Plain Sight: A Baseline Survey of Human Trafficking in Wisconsin. Madison:
Office of Justice Assistance.
50
Small, Kevonne, William Adams, Colleen Owens, and Kevin Roland. 2008. An Analysis of Federally
Prosecuted CSEC Cases Since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.
Washington: The Urban Institute.
Smith, Christopher. 2002. The United States Must Work to Abolish Slavery. In Slavery Today, edited
by Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Snow, Melissa. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report -- Salt Lake City, Utah.
Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Spangenberg, Mia 2002. International Trafficking of Children to New York City for Sexual Purposes. ECPAT.
Stevens, Kelli, Raymond A. Eve, Brittany A. Smith, and Robert Bing. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex
Trafficking Assessment Report -- Fort Worth, Texas. Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Stoecker, Sally. 2000. The Rise in Human Trafficking and the Role of Organized Crime.
Demokratizatsiya 8, no. 1: 129-131.
Struble, Linda. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report--San Antonio, Texas. Vancouver,
Sunderland, Judith. 2006. Swept Under the Rug: Abuses Against Domestic Workers Around the World.
Washington: Human Rights Watch.
Thukral, Juhu, and Melissa Ditmore. 2003. Revolving Door: an Analysis of Street-Based Prostitution in New
York City.
Thukral, Juhu and Melissa Ditmore. 2005. Behind Closed Doors: An Analysis of Indoor Sex Work in New
York City. New York: Urban Justice Center.
Tiefenbrun, Susan W. 2005. Sex Slavery in the United States and Its Law to Stop It Here and
Abroad. William & Mary Journal of Women and Law 11, no. 3: 317-386.
Torgoley, Shaheen P. 2006. “Trafficking and Forced Prostitution: A Manifestation of Modern

Slavery.” Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 14: 553-578.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2003. Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons (August
2003). Washington: Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2004. Assessment of U.S. Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons in February
2004. Washington: Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2005. Assessment of U.S. Government Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons in
February 2005. Washington: Department of Justice.
U.S. Department of State Visa Office. 2009. Report of the Visa Office 2008. Washington, Department
of State.
51
University of Iowa Center for Human Rights. 2006. Human Rights Index: Human Trafficking. in
Iowa Review 36, no. 1.
Unreported Author. 2006. Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to
Enhance U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad. U.S. GAO Releases Assessment of US Efforts to Combat
Trafficking. GAO--06--825.
Unreported Author. 2006. U.S. GAO Releases Assessment of US Efforts to Combat Trafficking. GAO--06--
825.
Urbina, Ian. 2007. For Youths, a Grim Tour on Magazine Crews. New York Times, February 21.
Van der Linden, Mariska. 2005. Human Trafficking and Forced Labour Exploitation: Guidance for Legislation
and Law Enforcement. Geneva: International Labour Organization.
Van Der Linden, Mariska. 2005. Trafficking for Forced Labor: How to Monitor the Recruitment of Migrant
Workers, Geneva: International Labour Organization.
http://www.ilo.org/sapfl/Informationresources/ILOPublications/lang--en/docName--
WCMS_081894/index.htm
Vardaman, Samantha Healy. 2008. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report -- Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands. Vancouver, WA: Shared Hope International.
Wade, Kris. 2009. Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report -- Independence, Missouri. Vancouver,
Watts, Charlotte, and Cathy Zimmerman. 2002. Violence Against Women: Global Scope and
Magnitude. The Lancet 359, no. 9313: 1232-1237.
Weiner, A. Neil, and Nicole Hala. 2008. Measuring Human Trafficking: Lessons from New York City. New
York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Weisel, Deborah Lamm. 2004. Street Prostitution in Raleigh, North Carolina: A Final Report to the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services on the Field Applications of the Problem-
Oriented Guides for Police Project.
Williams, Amy Bennett, and Jeff Cull. 2006. Immigration Issue Muddles Fight Against Human Trafficking.
http://www.humantrafficking.org.
Williamson, Celia, and Terry Cluse-Tolar. 2002. Pimp-Controlled Prostitution: Still an Integral Part
of Street Life. Violence Against Women 8, no. 9: 1074-1092.
Wilson, Jeremy M., and Erin Dalton. 2007. Human Trafficking in Ohio: Markets, Responses, and
Consideration. Arlington, VA: Rand Corporation.
52
Wolak, Janis, Kimberly Mitchell, and David Finkelhor. 2004. National Juvenile Online Victimization
Study.
Wynter, Alex. 2005. The New Slave Trade. The Bridge, Spring.
Zhang, Sheldon X. 2007. Smuggling and Trafficking in Human Beings: All Roads Lead to America.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
53
Appendix B: Assessment Criteria
Each source of data was reviewed by a member of the research team and the following pieces of
information were extracted:
• Source citation: Title of the report, document, or publication in which the data source
and/or estimate appears.
• Author(s) (ln/fn) #: The individual(s) or organization responsible for writing the report,
document, or publication in which the data source and/or estimate appears.
• Title of Journal (if applicable): Title of the journal in which the article with the data source
and/or estimate appears.
• Journal Volume, Number, and Pages: The volume number of the journal in which the article
with the data source and/or estimate appears and the page numbers of the article.
• Type of organization funding the report: (i.e., federal government, state government, local
government, nongovernmental organization (NGO), private foundation, university, etc.):
Indicate whether the organization funding the report is federal, state, local,
nongovernmental, a private foundation, a university, or some other type of organization.
• Name of organization funding the report: Indicates the name of the organization funding
the report, document, or publication in which the data source and/or estimate appeared.
• Reporting city: Location of reporting agency.
• City and Publishing House (Book): The city and publishing house of the book in which the
data source and/or estimate appeared.
• Date published: The year that the report, document or publication in which the data source
and/or estimate appears was released.
• Is this a primary source or a secondary source?: Indicates whether the report is a primary
source of data and/or estimates derived from the data or whether the report includes data
and/or estimates from other primary sources.
• If secondary source, list the primary source: author, date, title: The source citation for the
primary source of the data and/or estimates that appear in the report.
• Type of trafficking: The type of trafficking (sex trafficking, labor trafficking, or sex and
labor) that is included in the data source and/or used for the estimate.
• Study primarily about trafficking? (Yes/No): Indicates whether the study or report in which
the estimate appears is a trafficking study or a study on something else that may be related to
human trafficking (i.e., a study on smuggling and/or underage prostitution may include
information about human trafficking).
• Data source: Indicates the source of the data/where the data come from (i.e., ICPSR,
NACJD, HTRS).
• Purpose of data collection: Indicates why or for what purpose the data are being collected.
• Time period for which data being studied were collected (i.e., report studied incidents of
human trafficking occurring between 2000 and 2007): Indicate the dates for which the data
being studied within the report were collected. Note: differs from the dates of the study
period.
• Is there a definition of human trafficking used in the data source/report? Yes/No: Indicates
whether there is the data source/report includes a definition of human trafficking.
• Definition of human trafficking used in the report/data source: If the data source/report
includes a definition of human trafficking, indicate what that definition is.
• Does the definition meet criteria for severe forms of HT under TVPA?* Yes/No: Indicates
whether the definition meets the criteria for severe forms of human trafficking under the
TVPA.
54
*The term “severe forms of trafficking in persons” means- (A) sex trafficking in
which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion25, or in which the
person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or (B) the
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor
or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection
to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
• Method(s) for collecting data (i.e., interviews, surveys, official records): Indicates the type of
methodology used for collecting the data.
• From whom or what are the data collected? (i.e., identify respondents): Indicate who
responded to data collection efforts (i.e., police officers, victim service providers).
• Number of respondents/cases included in the data collection?: Indicate how many people
responded to data collection efforts or how many cases were included in the data collection.
• Method(s) for selecting respondents/sample selection strategy (i.e., random, cluster,
convenience sample): Indicate the strategy for selecting the sample that was used in the data
collection.
• Scope of data collection (i.e., region(s) data collected from, national vs. state vs. local):
Indicate the region(s) that the data were collected from and/or whether the data were
collected nationally, statewide, or locally.
• Number of victims identified: Indicates the number of victims identified in the data
source/report.
• Range of trafficking victims encompassed by the data source/estimate (domestic vs.
international victims, sex trafficking vs. labor trafficking victims): Indicates whether the
victims included in the data source/report were domestic, international, or both domestic
and international and whether they were victims of sex trafficking, labor trafficking, or both
sex and labor trafficking.
• Was an estimate derived from the data source? Y/N: Indicates whether or not an estimate
was derived from the data collected.
• Was the estimation referenced within the report derived from a secondary data source?
Y/N: Indicates whether an estimation referenced within the report was derived from a data
source that originated from a different study.
• What is the estimate: Indicates what the estimate is (i.e., between 1,000 and 5,000 victims are
trafficked for sex each year in the United States.)
• Statistical estimation techniques/how was the estimate derived?: Indicate the method(s) used
to calculate the estimate.
• Data cleaning, auditing, and quality control procedures: Indicates how the data were cleaned,
any auditing measures that were in place and how issues like confidentiality were controlled
for.
• Data storage (i.e., ICPSR, State Dept.): Indicate where is the data is/was stored.
• Data reporting procedures (i.e., series of semi-annual reports): Indicates if and how often
reports on the data are issued and to whom.
• Strengths of data source: Indicates how the data source can contribute to improved
estimates of the prevalence of human trafficking.
• Limitations of data source: Indicates the weaknesses of the data source or why it could not
contribute to improved estimates of the prevalence of human trafficking.
25 Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources in that a primary source is an original source of information,
whereas a secondary source is derived from pre-existing information.
55
• Strengths of estimate: Indicates why the estimate is important or what value it adds to our
knowledge of human trafficking.
• Limitations of estimate: Indicates the weaknesses of the estimate or why it is not a reliable
estimate of the prevalence of human trafficking.
• Reliability of information about subgroups of victims (low, medium, high): Indicates how
reliable the victim information is and the reason it is low, medium, or high.
• Estimate reporting/how the estimate has been used: Indicates how the estimate has been
used (i.e., used by state legislators to pass state human trafficking legislation).
• Limitations of data source/estimate acknowledged in the report: Indicate the weaknesses of
the data source/estimate that are acknowledged by the author(s) of the report in which they
appear.
• Identify how data source/estimate could be improved: Indicate ways the data
source/estimate could be improved and why.
• Identify how each source of data should be used to generate the most reliable information
about the prevalence of severe forms of human trafficking in the United States:
• Should the report be excluded in the evaluation of estimates of human trafficking? Yes/No:
Indicate if the reviewer thinks the report should be being excluded from the current study.
• Reason why report should be excluded in evaluation of estimates of human trafficking (i.e.,
use of secondary data source): Indicates why the reviewer thinks the report should be
excluded.
56
Appendix C: Data Collection Methodology
The research team collected and catalogued information about victims of severe forms of
human trafficking starting with the initial list of data sources presented by Humanity United in the
request for proposals. After beginning to review the preliminary set of sources, we used a recent
literature review funded by the National Institute of Justice (Gozdziak and Bump, 2009) that
included data and research on human trafficking conducted over the past 15 years to determine the
most applicable additional sources of information for the project. The experiences of research team
members conducting primary research on human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of
children was critical in helping us identify additional sources of information on human trafficking
victimization. Because human trafficking is a relatively new and emerging crime, it was also
necessary to examine sources of information on activities with elements of human trafficking that
might not be explicitly described as human trafficking, including, but not limited to, human
smuggling, exploitative and harmful labor conditions and practices, domestic work, and prostitution.
To overcome this problem, we developed a list of potential venues where victims of human
trafficking might be found. We then searched for information on victimization in these venues that
met the definition of human trafficking provided under the TVPA. Although the main objective of
the study was to provide clarity on trafficking victims in the United States, the team did not exclude
international reports. Some international reports have estimates of victims identified in the United
States and other important figures that are related to trafficking in the United States (e.g. financial
profit in U.S. dollars in foreign trafficking markets). However, reports only discussing the
experiences of victims in foreign countries were based on the scope of this study. The team
compiled a list of sources using information from the literature review, as well as other data sources
collected by the team from Internet searches and past and present research projects involving
human trafficking. We explored data sources dating back as early as 1982 and non-English reports.
Reports containing any element of human trafficking were reviewed in the cataloging process. Both
primary and secondary sources were collected, including reports written by government agencies,
nongovernmental institutions, academia, and the media.
Once the preliminary list of sources was developed, the Alliance to End Slavery and
Trafficking (ATEST)—a coalition of anti-human trafficking and anti-slavery organizations—
reviewed the sources and provided feedback on additional reports or sources of data. ATEST, a
project of Humanity United, is composed of nine leading U.S.-based nongovernmental
organizations, including experts in human trafficking research. Throughout the collection and
cataloging process, we used feedback from ATEST members in order to identify existing
information on human trafficking numbers and estimates. The collection process remained ongoing
throughout the assessment process to avoid any gaps in information and to maintain diligence and
comprehensiveness.
Through dialogue with ATEST, additional sources of information were identified and new
studies were added to the assessment. In total, we identified 207 reports on sources of data that met
our criteria for providing information on counts of potential human trafficking victims. Of the 207
data sources assessed in this study, 68 reports (33%) were funded by the federal government, 49
reports (24%) were from nongovernmental agencies, and 29 reports or studies (14%) were
conducted by academic institutions. Of the 207 sources identified through the search, 110 were
primary sources of data.26
26 The HTRS database allows the recording of data on cases without including data on the victims in these cases.
57
Appendix D: Counts of Identified Sources
The following table presents the numbers of sources of data we have found and used in our
calculations regarding the number of victims in the various categories and venues of human
trafficking. A source of data does not always reflect one study or report. Some reports, most notably
the Attorney General’s annual report to Congress, contain multiple sources for counts of victims
(e.g. FBI investigations vs. HHS victim certifications). When populating the tables and counting
sources, we treated every count as a distinct source. Similarly, when one report gave distinct data
about different categories, e.g. labor trafficking and sex trafficking, it was counted as a source in
both categories. In contrast, sources that are provided routinely (annual reports), as well as reports
that rely on the same data source, were counted only once.
Type of Adult/Minor Foreign/Domestic
Venue Counts Estimates
trafficking victims victims
No venue reported 2 1
Agriculture
Domestic work 1
Construction
Foreign (N=4)
Landscaping
Retail/sales industries
Entertainment
Restaurants
Forced begging
No venue reported 1
Agriculture
Domestic work
Construction
Labor
trafficking Domestic (N=2)
(N=18) Landscaping
Retail/sales industries 1
Entertainment
Restaurants
Forced begging
Agriculture 2
Domestic work 1
Construction
Foreign or domestic
Factories/Industrial 1
(status unreported)
(N=12) Landscaping
Entertainment 1
Restaurants 1
Forced begging
Sex trafficking Adult (N=8) Foreign (N=1) No venue reported 1
(N=44) Households
Brothels
58
Street prostitution
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
No venue reported 1
Households
Brothels
Street prostitution
Domestic (N=1)
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Households
Brothels
Foreign or domestic Escort service industry

(status unreported)
(N=6) Street prostitution
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Minor (N=20) Foreign (N=1) No venue reported 1
Households
Brothels
Street prostitution
Truck stops
59
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Households
Brothels
Street prostitution
Domestic (N=4)
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Households
Brothels
Foreign or domestic Street prostitution
(status unreported)
Truck stops
(N=15)
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Adult or minor No venue reported 1 2
(status Households
unreported) Brothels 1
(N=16) Hotel/In-call prostitution
Street prostitution
Foreign (N=4)
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Domestic (N=0) No venue reported
Households
Brothels
60
Street prostitution
Truck stops
Strip clubs
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex
Households
Brothels 1
Escort service industry 1
Foreign or domestic
Street prostitution 1
(status unreported)
(N=12) Truck stops
Strip clubs 2
Work camps
Institutional care
Survival sex 1
Foreign (N=1) No venue reported 1

No venue reported
Domestic (N=0)
Adult (N=1)
Foreign or domestic
(status unreported) No venue reported
(N=0)
Sex or labor Foreign (N=1) No venue reported 1
trafficking
(type
Minor (N=1) Foreign or domestic
unreported)
(N=6) (status unreported) No venue reported
(N=0)
Foreign (N=0) No venue reported
Adult or minor
(status
unreported) Foreign or domestic
(N=4) (status unreported) No venue reported 4
(N=4)
The total number of sources we have used in our calculations is thus 68. Note that 53 (78%)
of these sources do not deal with a specific human trafficking venue, and that out of the 15 sources
that are venue specific, 13 (87%) do not specify whether they deal with foreign or domestic victims.
61
Appendix E: Original Matrices and Technical Notes for Tables 4-6
Original Matrix for Table 4: Labor Trafficking
Counts of victims
victims Tech.
Venue Source of data References
Human Trafficking
Kyckelhahn,
No venue Reporting System
246 246 10 10 1,296 1,296 53 53 Beck, and 1
reported (HTRS) data on alleged
Cohen, 2009
cases
Office of the
No venue Cases opened by the
22 22 1 1 - - - - Attorney 2
reported Civil Rights Division
General, 2009
Office of the
36 36 2 2 - - - - Attorney 3
reported FBI
General, 2009
Office of the
Cases opened by
No venue Attorney
361 361 - - - - - - Immigration and 4
reported General, 2006-
Customs Enforcement
2009
Office of the
No venue The Office for Victims
89 89 4 4 - - - - Attorney 5
reported of Crime
General, 2009
Office of the
No venue The Legal Services Attorney
36 36 1 1 - - - - 6
reported Corporation General, 2004-
2009
Certifications and Office of the
No venue letters of eligibility Attorney
48 48 - - - - - - 7
reported issued by the Office of General, 2006-
Refugee Resettlement 2009
Federal prosecutions in
No venue
24 24 1 1 - - - - which trafficking was Motivans, 2006 8
reported
the leading offense
Farrell,
No venue A survey of law
484 484 21 21 5,435 5,435 226 226 McDevitt, and 9
reported enforcement agencies
Fahy, 2008
Newton, Dutch,
- - - - 141 1,400 6 58 and Cummings, 10
2008
Minnesota
No venue A survey of service Office of Justice
39 39 2 2 2,263 2,263 92 92 12
reported providers in MN Programs, 2007
and 2008
California
No venue enforcement agencies, Combat
466 466 19 19 3,869 3,869 157 157 13
reported prosecutors, victims Trafficking and
service providers in CA Slavery Task
Force, 2007
Multiple economic
No venue
- - - - 46,849 46,849 - - indicators of eight Latin Clawson, 2005 14
reported
American countries
62
Counts of victims
victims Tech.
Venue Source of data References
Ranges where
no venue 22 941 1 39 141 46,849 6 323
reported
Reports of abuses
against foreign workers Oxfam America,
Agriculture 400 1,000 - - - - - - 15
in agriculture in FL, 2004
GA, and SC
Bales, 2004;
Agriculture 4 7 - - - - - - Human Rights 11
expert interviews
Center, 2005
Ranges for
4 1,000 - - - - - -
Agriculture
Domestic
124 136 - - 2,541 2,787 - - providers for migrant Pier, 2001 16
work
workers in DC region
Bales, 2004;
Domestic Newspaper articles and
22 27 1 1 - - - - Human Rights 11
work expert interviews
Center, 2005
Range for
Domestic 22 136 1 1 2,541 2,787 - -
work
Bales, 2004;
Sweatshop/ Newspaper articles and
25 46 1 2 - - - - Human Rights 11
Factories expert interviews
Center, 2005
Bales, 2004;
Service/ Newspaper articles and
3 3 - - - - - - Human Rights 11
Food/Care expert interviews
Center, 2005
Bales, 2004;
Entertainment 2 2 - - - - - - Human Rights 11
expert interviews
Center, 2005
Several expert estimates
Retail sales
- - - - - - 25 300 regarding traveling Urbina, 2007 17
industries
magazine crews
63
Original Matrix for Table 5: Adult Sex Trafficking
Counts of victims29
victims30
Tech.
Venue Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic Source of data References
note
Human Trafficking Kyckelhahn,

No venue
246 246 429 429 1,297 1,297 2,259 2,259 Reporting System (HTRS) Beck, and 1
reported
data on alleged cases Cohen, 2009
Office of the
No venue Cases opened by the Civil
9 9 15 15 - - - - Attorney 2
reported Rights Division
General, 2009
Office of the
No venue
44 44 76 76 - - - - Cases opened by the FBI Attorney 3
reported
General, 2009
Office of the
No venue Immigration and Customs Attorney
307 307 - - - - - - 4
reported Enforcement General, 2006-
2009
Office of the
No venue The Office for Victims of
80 80 140 140 - - - - Attorney 5
reported Crime
General, 2009
Office of the
33 33 57 57 - - - - 6
2009
Certifications and letters of Office of the
No venue eligibility issued by the Attorney
148 148 - - - - - - 7
reported Office of Refugee General, 2006-
Resettlement 2009
Federal prosecutions in
No venue
25 25 43 43 - - - - which trafficking was the Motivans, 2006 8
reported
leading offense
Farrell,
87 87 156 156 962 962 1,710 1,710 McDevitt, and 9
Fahy, 2008
Newton,
No venue A survey of law Dutch, and
- - - - 37 375 67 667 10
reported enforcement agencies Cummings,
2008
Bales, 2004;
No venue Newspaper articles and
13 22 22 38 - - - - Human Rights 11
reported expert interviews
Center, 2005
Minnesota
Office of
No venue A survey of service
49 49 84 84 2,765 2, 765 4,815 4, 815 Justice 12
reported providers in MN
Programs, 2007
and 2008
64
Counts of victims29
victims30
Tech.
note
California
No venue enforcement agencies, Combat
127 127 220 220 1,051 1,051 1,830 1,830 13
reported prosecutors, victims service Trafficking and
providers in CA Slavery Task
Force, 2007
Multiple economic
No venue indicators of 15 countries in
- - - - 8,733 8,733 - - Clawson, 2007 18
reported Eastern Europe and 8 in
Latin America
Field research, interviews

No venue
- - - - 2,268 2,268 4,032 4,032 with victims and experts, Kara, 2009 19
reported
and official data
No venue Field research in Mexico
- - - - 3,500 - - - Acharya, 2006 20
reported City
No venue Interviews with service Thukral and
3 4 5 6 108 125 187 217 22
reported providers in New York City Ditmore, 2005
Ranges for
no venue 3 307 5 527 37 8,733 67 4,902
reported
Street Arrest data in Chicago and O’Leary and
51 128 89 222 4,962 12,404 8,640 21,600 21
prostitution expert interviews Howard, 2001
Puzzanchera,
Street National UCR data (FBI
6,390 12,780 11,128 22,256 - - - - Adams, and 23
prostitution arrests)
Kang, 2008
Ranges
street 51 12,780 89 22,256 4,962 12,404 8,640 21,600
prostitution
Escort Arrest data in Chicago and O’Leary and

64 255 111 445 6,202 24,808 10,800 43,199 21
services expert interviews Howard, 2001
Massage Arrest data in Chicago and O’Leary and
11 22 19 38 1,054 2,109 1,836 3,672 21
parlors expert interviews Howard, 2001
Exotic Arrest data in Chicago and O’Leary and
40 163 69 283 3,876 15,815 6,750 27,540 21
dancing expert interviews Howard, 2001
Raphael and
Strip clubs - - - - 382 382 488 488 Website on U.S. strip clubs 24
Ashley, 2008
65
Original Matrix for Table 6: Child Sex Trafficking
Counts of victims29 National estimate of victims30
Tech.
note
Human Trafficking
Kyckelhahn,
No venue Reporting System
175 175 305 305 921 921 1,604 1,604 Beck, and 1
reported (HTRS) data on
Cohen, 2009
alleged cases
Office of the
4 4 6 6 - - - - Attorney 2
reported Civil Rights Division
General, 2009
Office of the
19 19 32 32 - - - - Attorney 3
reported FBI
General, 2009
Office of the
Immigration and
No venue Attorney
132 132 - - - - - - Customs 4
Enforcement
2009
Office of the
No venue The Office for
34 34 60 60 - - - - Attorney 5
reported Victims of Crime
General, 2009
Office of the
14 14 24 24 - - - - 6
2009
Certifications and
Office of the
letters of eligibility
No venue Attorney
16 16 - - - - - - issued by the Office 7
of Refugee
2009
Resettlement
No venue in which trafficking
11 11 19 19 - - - - Motivans, 2006 8
reported was the leading
offense
A survey of law Farrell,
No venue
37 37 66 66 412 412 733 733 enforcement McDevitt, and 9
reported
agencies Fahy, 2008
A survey of law Newton, Dutch,
No venue
- - - - 16 160 29 288 enforcement and Cummings, 10
reported
agencies 2008
Bales, 2004;
No venue Newspaper articles
5 10 10 16 - - - - Human Rights 11
reported and expert interviews
Center, 2005
Minnesota
No venue A survey of service Office of Justice
35 35 61 61 1,993 1,993 3,470 3,470 12
reported providers in MN Programs, 2007
and 2008
66
Tech.
note
Interviews with law California
enforcement Alliance to
No venue agencies, Combat
24 24 42 42 200 200 349 349 13
reported prosecutors, victims Trafficking and
service providers in Slavery Task
CA Force, 2007
Multiple economic
indicators of 15
No venue
- - - - 3,742 3,742 - - countries in Eastern Clawson, 2007 18
reported
Europe and 8 in
Latin America
Field research,
No venue interviews with
- - - - 972 972 1,728 1,728 Kara, 2009 19
reported victims and experts,
and official data
No venue Field research in
- - - - 1,500 - - - Acharya, 2006 20
reported Mexico City
Interviews with
No venue Thukral and
1 1 3 3 46 54 80 93 service providers in 22
reported Ditmore, , 2005
New York City
Field research in the
No venue Estes and
- - - - 89,081 118,770 50,108 66,808 U.S., Canada, and 26
reported Weiner, 2001
Mexico
No venue Federally prosecuted
188 188 333 333 - - - - Small, et al., 2008 27
reported CSEC cases
Office of the
No venue Innocence Lost
- - 108 108 - - - - Attorney 28
reported Initiative
General, 2008
No venue National survey of Edwards et al.,
- - - - 498,571 498,571 938,487 938,487 29
reported adolescents 2006
Range no
venue 1 188 3 333 16 498,571 29 938,487
reported
Arrest data in 21
Street O’Leary and
22 55 38 95 2,128 5,320 3,706 9,264 Chicago and expert
prostitution Howard, 2001
interviews
Puzzanchera,
Street National UCR data
639 639 1,114 1,114 - - - - Adams, and 23
prostitution (FBI arrests)
Kang, 2008
Gragg et al.,
Street
- - - - - - 93,174 93,174 CSEC cases in NY 2007; Curtis et. 32
prostitution
al., 2008
67
Tech.
note
Estimates from 9
Shared Hope
Street U.S. cities based on
- - - - - - 16,894 16,894 International, 31
prostitution law enforcement and
2009
service provider data
Juvenile prostitution
Street arrests and service
37 62 263 438 1,767 2,960 12,557 20,913 Boyer, 2008 32
prostitution provider survey in
WA
Range street
22 639 38 1,114 1,767 5,320 3,706 93,174
prostitution
Survival sex - - - - 36,620 169,636 107,706 301,636 Greene, 1999 33
Arrest data in
Escort O’Leary and
27 109 48 191 2,660 10,640 4,632 18,528 Chicago and expert 21
services Howard, 2001
interviews
Arrest data in
Massage O’Leary and
5 9 8 16 452 904 787 1,575 Chicago and expert 21
parlors Howard, 2001
interviews
Arrest data in
Exotic O’Leary and
17 70 30 122 1,663 6,783 2,895 11,812 Chicago and expert 21
dancing Howard, 2001
interviews
68
The following technical notes give a detailed account of the original numbers that can be found in
the various sources we have identified, the procedures we have conducted to clean and standardize
them, and the ways we used them to generate estimates. The serial numbers of the notes correspond
to the number under the “Tech. note” column in Tables 4–6 in the main report. The final results of
the calculations, i.e. the numbers that are presented in Tables 4–6, are presented here in bold font.
General Sources Used in Multiple Types of Human Trafficking Calculations
1) Human Trafficking Reporting System data on alleged cases (Kyckelhahn, Beck, and Cohen,
2009)
According to Table 7 in this report, the number of recorded victims in labor trafficking incidents is
313, and the number of recorded victims in sex trafficking incidents is 1,070. Of the 1,070 victims of
sex trafficking, 429 are reported to be adults, 184 are reported to be minors, and the remaining 457
are of unknown age. If we assume that the proportion of adults within the victims of unknown age
is the same as in the group of victims of known age (0.7), we get an additional estimated 320 adult
victims and 131 minor victims, amounting to 749 and 321 victims, respectively.
These numbers are based only on those incidents in which some data were provided about the
number of victims.27 According to Table 3 in this report, there are an additional 44 incidents of labor
trafficking, 218 incidents of adult sex trafficking, and 261 incidents of minor sex trafficking that do
not contain victim data. We assume that each of these cases involved the average number of victims
per case, i.e. 3.07 for labor trafficking cases and 1.99 for sex trafficking cases. This extrapolation
leads to the adding of 135 victims of labor trafficking, 433 adult victims of sex trafficking, and 518
minor victims of sex trafficking. Adding them up and averaging over the period of 21 months, we
get a total of 256 victims of labor trafficking, 675 adult victims of sex trafficking, and 480 minor
victims of sex trafficking per year. Of the labor trafficking victims, 246 (96 percent) are estimated to
be foreign and 10 (4 percent) are estimated to be of domestic origin. Of the adult sex trafficking
victims, 246 (36 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 429 (64 percent) are estimated to be
domestic. Of the minor sex trafficking victims, 175 (36 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 305
(64 percent) are estimated to be domestic.28
According to the latest census data (2000), the 38 task forces that have identified these victims cover
a geographical region that contains about 19 percent of the entire U.S. population. Using this
percentage to extrapolate the data over the entire U.S. population, we get the following total
estimated number of victims per year:
27 This calculation is based on the same source and is provided in Appendix F.

28 For an explanation of the percentages that are used in this estimation, see Appendix F.
69
Total
Foreign 1,296
Labor trafficking 1,349
Domestic 53
Foreign 1,297
Sex trafficking of adults 3,556
Domestic 2,259
Foreign 921
Sex trafficking of minors 2,525
Domestic 1,604
Total 7,430
2) Civil Rights Division data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)

The following data are provided for the number of trafficking cases opened by the Civil Rights
Division in the Department of Justice:
CRD Cases Total 2001- Annual
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 average
Labor
6 3 3 3 9 10 12 13 59 7.4
trafficking
Sex
4 7 8 23 26 22 20 27 137 17.1
trafficking
Assuming these cases involved the average number of victims, i.e. 3.07 victims in a labor trafficking
case and 1.99 victims in a sex trafficking case,29 they yield an annual average of 23 victims of labor
trafficking and 34 victims of sex trafficking. Of the labor trafficking victims, 22 (96 percent) are
estimated to be foreign and 1 (4 percent) domestic. Of the sex trafficking victims, 24 (70 percent) are
estimated to be adults: 9 (36 percent) foreign and 15 (64 percent) domestic, and 10 (30 percent) are
estimated to be minors: 4 (36 percent) foreign and 6 (64 percent) domestic. No estimate was derived
from these numbers because there are no available data on the proportion of cases that are opened
by the CRD from the entire number of cases.
3) Federal Bureau of Investigation data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)

The following data are provided for the number of trafficking cases opened by the FBI:
Total 2001- Annual

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 average
54 58 65 86 146 126 120 132 787 98
70
Of the 98 annual cases, we estimate that 12 (13 percent) are cases of labor trafficking and 86 (87
percent) are cases of sex trafficking. Assuming these cases involved the average number of victims,
i.e. 3.07 victims in a labor trafficking case and 1.99 victims in a sex trafficking case, they yield an
annual average of 38 victims of labor trafficking and 171 victims of sex trafficking. Of the labor
trafficking victims, 36 (96 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 2 (4 percent) domestic. Of the
sex trafficking victims, 120 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 44 foreign (36 percent) and 76
domestic (64 percent), and 51 (64 percent) are estimated to be minors: 19 foreign (36 percent) and 32
domestic (64 percent). No estimate was derived from these numbers because there are no available
data on the proportion of FBI trafficking cases among all trafficking cases.
4) Immigration and Customs Enforcement data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)
The following data are provided regarding the number of trafficking cases opened by the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):
Total 2005- Annual
ICE Cases 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 average
Labor
86 85 129 170 470 118
trafficking
Sex
188 214 219 262 883 221
trafficking
Assuming these cases involved the average number of victims, i.e. 3.07 victims in a labor trafficking
case and 1.99 victims in a sex trafficking case, they yield an annual average of 361 victims of labor
trafficking and 438 victims of sex trafficking. Since these cases were opened by the ICE, we assume
that all of these victims are foreigners, although the source does not explicitly state that. Of the sex
trafficking victims, 307 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults and 132 (30 percent) are estimated to
be minors. No estimate was derived from these numbers because there are no available data on the
proportion of ICE trafficking cases among all trafficking cases.
5) Office of Victims of Crime data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)

The source indicates that during a period of 5.5 years (January 2003 through June 30, 2008), grantees
of the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) have provided services to 2,238 pre-certified potential
trafficking victims. Divided by 5.5, this yields 407 victims per year, of whom 92 (23 percent) are
estimated to be victims of labor trafficking and 315 (77 percent) are estimated to be victims of sex
trafficking. Of the labor trafficking victims, 89 (96 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 4 (4
percent) domestic. Of the sex trafficking victims, 220 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 80
foreigners (36 percent) and 140 domestic (64 percent), and 94 (64 percent) are estimated to be
minors: 34 foreigners (36 percent) and 60 domestic (64 percent). No estimate was derived from
these numbers because there are no available data on the proportion of trafficking victims who
receive OVC services.
6) Legal Services data (Office of the Attorney General, 2004–2009)
71
The following data are provided regarding the number of victims that were assisted by the Legal
Services Corporation (LSC):
Total 2005- Annual
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2008 average
81 170 142 269 258 74 994 166
Of the 166 annual LSC clients, 37 (23 percent) are estimated to be victims of labor trafficking and
128 (77 percent) are estimated to be victims of sex trafficking. Of the labor trafficking victims, 36
(96 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 1 (4 percent) domestic. Of the sex trafficking victims, 90
(70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 33 foreign (36 percent) and 57 domestic (64 percent), and 38
(64 percent) are estimated to be minors: 14 foreign (36 percent) and 24 domestic (64 percent).
7) Office of Refugee and Resettlement data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)
The following data are provided regarding the number of adult victims that have been “certified”
and the number of minor victims who have received letters of eligibility from the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR):
ORR
Total 200 Annual
certifications 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1-2008 average
and letters
Adults 194 81 145 147 197 214 270 286 1,543 192
Minors 4 18 6 16 34 20 33 31 162 20
Because the ORR only certifies victims who are not U.S. citizens, these numbers represent only
foreign victims. Victims of labor trafficking are estimated to comprise 23 percent of all trafficking
victims, i.e. 43 of the adult victims and 5 of the minor victims, yielding a total of 48 victims of labor
trafficking. Victims of sex trafficking are estimated to comprise 77 percent of all trafficking victims,
i.e. 148 of the adult victims and 16 of the minor victims.30
8) Federal Justice System Resource Center data (Motivans, 2006)

This source indicates that the total number of suspects in matters referred to U.S. attorneys with
human trafficking offenses as the lead charge between 2001 and 2005 is 555, or an annual average of
111 suspects. Assuming that, on average, every suspect is linked to at least one victim,31 this yields
111 victims per year. Of them, 25 (23 percent) are estimated to be victims of labor trafficking and 97
(77 percent) are estimated to be victims of sex trafficking. Of the labor trafficking victims, 24 (96
percent) are estimated to be foreign and 1 is estimated to be domestic. Of the sex trafficking victims,
68 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 25 foreigners (36 percent) and 43 domestic (64 percent),
and 29 (64 percent) are estimated to be minors: 11 foreigners (36 percent) and 19 domestic (64
30 This does not have to be true for every case, as two suspects could be involved in the trafficking of one victim.
72
percent).32 No estimate was derived from these numbers because there are no available data on the
proportion of these suspects among the population of people involved in crimes of human
trafficking.
9) Northeastern University study of law enforcement responses to human trafficking (Farrell,

McDevitt, and Fahy, 2008)
How preliminary numbers were calculated: Northeastern University distributed a survey to
3,000 local, county, and state law enforcement--of which, 117 indicated they had investigated at least
one case of trafficking between 2000 and 2006. Each agency also indicated the total number of cases
they had investigated for each year for a total of 2,394 cases of sex and labor trafficking between
2000 and 2006. According to the report, 36 percent (862) of the agencies reported having only sex
trafficking cases, 34 percent (814) reported having only labor trafficking cases, and 30 percent (718)
reported having sex and labor trafficking cases. If we divide the number of agencies with sex and
labor trafficking cases evenly between sex and labor trafficking, we get 359 for a total of 1,173
(814+359) cases of labor trafficking and 1,221 (862+359) cases of sex trafficking between 2000 and
2006. Divided by seven years, we get an annual average of 168 victims of labor trafficking and 174
victims of sex trafficking. The following calculations were performed to break down these numbers
into categories:33
• 168 * .94 (proportion foreign) * 3.07 (avg # sex trafficking vics) = 484 foreign labor trafficking
victims
• 168 * .04 (proportion domestic) * 3.07 (avg # sex trafficking vics) = 21 domestic labor
trafficking victims
• 174 * .70 (proportion adult) * .36 (proportion foreign) * 1.99 (avg # sex trafficking vics) = 87
adult foreign sex trafficking victims
• 174 * .70 (proportion adult) * .64 (proportion domestic) * 1.99 (avg # sex trafficking vics) =
156 adult domestic sex trafficking victims
• 174 * .30 (proportion minors) * .36 (proportion foreign) * 1.99 (avg # sex trafficking vics) = 37
minor foreign sex trafficking victims
• 174 * .30 (proportion minors) * .64 (proportion domestic) * 1.99 (avg # sex trafficking vics) =
66 minor domestic sex trafficking victims
How estimated numbers were calculated: Northeastern University estimated 907 law
enforcement agencies in the United States reported a sex or labor trafficking case from 2000 to
2006. First, we want to estimate the number of law enforcement agencies in the United States that
would report a sex or labor trafficking case in one year. According to the report, in 2006, 97 agencies
(of the 117 over the seven year period) reported at least 1 trafficking investigation. Using this ratio,
we assume 752 law enforcement agencies would have at least one sex or labor trafficking case in any
one year:
907 agencies between 2000–2006 * (97 agencies reporting >=1 trafficking case in 2006 / 117
agencies reporting >=1 trafficking case in 2000-2006) = 752 law enforcement agencies per year
32 The multipliers are derived and explained in Appendix F

33This assumes that, of the agencies that had a case during the course of two years, at least half of them had a case
during the period of one year and at the most they all had a case in the course of that year.
73
According to the report, 34 percent (256) of the agencies reported only labor trafficking cases, 36
percent (271) reported only sex trafficking cases, and another 30 percent (226) reported sex and
labor trafficking cases.
We next estimate the number of cases resulting from the agencies’ investigations. According to the
report, the average number of investigations per agency over the seven years is five investigations.
For the sex and labor trafficking agencies, we divided the cases evenly between sex and labor
trafficking:
• 256 agencies with labor trafficking only * 5 cases per agency = 1,280 labor trafficking cases
• 271 agencies with sex trafficking only * 5 cases per agency = 1,354 sex trafficking cases
• 226 agencies with sex and labor trafficking * 5 cases per agency = 1,128 sex trafficking cases,
which are divided evenly between labor trafficking cases and sex trafficking cases.
Adding these together, we get 1,844 labor trafficking cases and 1,918 sex trafficking cases per year.
• 1,844 cases of labor trafficking * .96 (proportion foreign) * 3.07 (avg # labor trafficking vics) =
5,435 foreign labor trafficking victims
• 1,844 cases of labor trafficking * .04 (proportion domestic) * 3.07 (avg # labor trafficking vics) =
226 domestic labor trafficking victims
• 1,918 cases of sex trafficking) * .70 (proportion adult) * .36 (proportion foreign) * 1.99 (avg #
sex trafficking vics) = 962 adult foreign sex trafficking victims
• 1,918 cases of sex trafficking * .70 (proportion adult) * .64 (proportion domestic) * 1.99 (avg #
sex trafficking vics) = 1,710 adult domestic sex trafficking victims
• 1,918 cases of sex trafficking) * .30 (proportion minors) * .36 (proportion foreign) * 1.99 (avg #
sex trafficking vics) = 412 minor foreign sex trafficking victims
• 1,918 cases of sex trafficking * .30 (proportion minors) * .64 (proportion domestic) * 1.99 (avg #
sex trafficking vics) = 733 minor domestic sex trafficking victims
10) National Opinion Research Center study of law enforcement (Newton, Dutch, and
Cummings, 2008)
According to this source, an estimated 116 law enforcement agencies representing U.S. counties
have at some time investigated at least one case of labor trafficking, and an estimated 696 law
enforcement agencies have ever investigated at least one case of sex trafficking. Ninety-five agencies
are estimated to have investigated at least one case of labor trafficking in the two years preceding the
study, and 150 agencies are estimated to have investigated at least one case of sex trafficking in the
same period. Because the number of agencies that had at least one trafficking case in one year is not
specified, we will use a range of 48–95 agencies with labor trafficking cases and 75–150 agencies
with sex trafficking cases.34 Assuming that agencies had a minimum of one case per year and a
34 Five is the average number of sex trafficking cases for law enforcement agencies that have at least one case, according
to Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahy, 2008 (see technical note 9 above).
74
maximum of five cases per year,35 yields an estimated range of 48–475 labor trafficking cases and
75–750 sex trafficking cases per year nationwide.
The number of victims per case in this survey ranged from 1 to 40. With no further data from this
study, we will assume that they involved the average number of victims, i.e. 1.99 victims per sex
trafficking case and 3.07 victims per labor trafficking case. We thus get an estimate of 147–1458
victims of labor trafficking and 149–1489 victims of sex trafficking. Of the labor trafficking victims,
141–1,400 (96 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 6–58 (4 percent) are estimated to be
domestic. Of the sex trafficking victims, 104–1,042 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 37–375
(36 percent) foreign and 67–667 (64 percent) domestic, and 45–448 (30 percent) are estimated to be
minors: 16–160 (36 percent) foreign and 29–288 (64 percent) domestic.
11) Bales and Human Rights Center (2004 and 2005)

These two reports are based on the same research study, which counted cases of trafficking over a
period of six years (1998–2003). One of them (#49) is national in scope, and the other (#209)
focuses solely on the state of California.36 The following table presents raw data that were extracted
from the two reports:
National
California report
report
Cases Cases Victims
Economic sector
identified identified identified
Sex trafficking Forced prostitution 58 27 238
Agriculture 13 1 2
Domestic services 34 19 93
Labor trafficking Sweatshop/factory 6 3 143
Service/food/care 5 - -
Entertainment 4 - -
Because the national report does not provide victim numbers, we need to estimate them in order to
add them to the victims found in California. From the California data, we can calculate the average
number of victims per case for four of the venues: 8.8 victims per case in forced prostitution, 2
victims per case in the agriculture sector, 4.9 victims per case in the domestic services sector, and
47.7 victims per case in the sweatshop/factory sector. These are different from the average number
of victims per case we are using throughout this report.37 We will use both multipliers to generate a
high and low estimate of the total number of victims that are represented by these two sources. The
following table presents this calculation:
35The California report contains details about the numbers of estimated victims, whereas the national report only
presents numbers of cases. For this reason, we are using both reports, despite the fact that the national report does
include all the cases in the California report.
36 3.07 victims per labor trafficking case and 1.99 victims per sex trafficking case, as explained in Appendix F.
75
Total Annual
estimated average
Additional Estimated victims from
Victims number of estimated
Economic cases from the additional cases
identified in victims (for 6 number of
sector national
California years) victims
report
California
Appendix F Low High Low High
report
Agriculture 2 12 24 37 26 39 4 7
Domestic
93 15 73 46 139 166 23 28
services
Sweatshop/
143 3 143 9 152 286 25 48
factory
Service/food/
0 5 - 15 15 15 3 3
care
Entertainment 0 4 - 12 12 12 2 2
Sex trafficking
(“forced 238 31 273 62 300 511 50 85
prostitution”)
For victims of labor trafficking, 96 percent are estimated to be of foreign origin and only 4 percent
domestic. Given the low numbers of victims in the agriculture, service/food/care, and
entertainment venues, we estimate that they are all foreign. Of the domestic workers 22–27 are
estimated to be foreign and 1 is estimated to be domestic. Of the sweatshop workers, 25–46 are
estimated to be foreign and 1-2 is estimated to be domestic.
Of the sex trafficking victims, 35–60 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 13–22 foreigners (36
percent) and 22–38 domestic (64 percent), and 15–26 (30 percent) are estimated to be minors: 5–10
foreigners (36 percent) and 10–16 domestic (64 percent).38
12) Minnesota Human Trafficking Reports (Minnesota Office of Justice Programs, 2007–2008)
The following data were extracted from these two reports, regarding the number of victims
Minnesota service providers reported to have served in the three years preceding the survey:
LT victims in 3 years ST victims in 3 years

Adult Adult
Adult male Child Adult male Child
female female
2007 84 40 30 215 12 410
2008 47 39 7 564 4 163
Annual average 22 13 6 130 3 96
For labor trafficking, the average number of annual victims is 22+13+6=41, of whom 39 (96
percent) are estimated to be foreign and 2 (4 percent) are estimated to be domestic. For sex
76
trafficking, the average annual number of adult victims is 130+3=133, of whom 49 (36 percent) are
estimated to be foreign and 84 (64 percent) are estimated to be domestic. Of the 96 average annual
number of child victims of sex trafficking, 35 (36 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 61 (64
percent) are estimated to be domestic.39
We can then extrapolate to the entire United States by multiplying by the ratio of the U.S.
population and the Minnesota population. According to the latest census data (2000), the population
of the United States is approximately 57 times the population of Minnesota. The extrapolation yields
an estimate of 2,355 victims of labor trafficking (2,263 foreign and 92 domestic), 7,580 adult victims
of sex trafficking (2,765 foreign and 4,815 domestic), and 5,463 child victims of sex trafficking
(1,993 foreign and 3,470 domestic).
13) California Human Trafficking Report (California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery
Task Force, 2007)
This report contains the results of a survey that was conducted in 2007 among 101 organizations
that come in contact with trafficking victims, including law enforcement agencies, federally funded
regional task forces, victim services agencies, domestic violence and sexual assault service providers,
immigrant rights groups, legal service providers, and refugee assistance organizations. The following
table, extracted from the report, represents what 94 of the responding organizations reported on the
number of victims they have encountered in the year prior to the survey:
Number of victims Percent reporting

None or unknown 41
1–5 32
6–20 20
21–50 2
51–100 2
Over 100 3
We calculated the number of agencies from the percentages and multiplied them by the average
number of reported victims in order to get the total number of victims represented in this report:40
Percent of Number of Average victims Total

organizations organizations reported victims
41 39 0 0
32 30 3 90
20 19 13 244
2 2 36 67
2 2 76 142
39 Although this procedure is necessary for the purpose of using this source, it leads to an unknown amount of double
counting, as we do not know how many victims were encountered by more than one organization.
77
3 3 126 354
Total 100 94 897
The report also states that 54 percent of the reported victims were subject to labor trafficking, while
the remaining 46 percent were trafficked in the sex industry. Sixteen percent of the trafficking
victims were children. If we apply these percentages to the number of victims we have calculated
above, we get 485 victims of labor trafficking, 347 adult victims of sex trafficking, and 66 child
victims of sex trafficking.
The report does not contain data on the origin of the victims. We estimate that among the victims
of labor trafficking, 466 (96 percent) are foreign and 19 (4 percent) are domestic; among the adult
sex trafficking victims, 127 (36 percent) are foreign and 220 (64 percent) are domestic; and, among
the child sex trafficking victims, 24 (36 percent) are foreign and 42 (64 percent) are domestic.41
We can extrapolate these numbers to the entire U.S. population by multiplying by the ratio between
the U.S. population and the population of California, which—according to the latest census data
(2000)—is 8.31. After multiplying, we get a national estimate of 3,869 foreign and 157 domestic
victims of labor trafficking, 1,051 foreign and 1,830 domestic victims of sex trafficking who are
adults, and 200 foreign and 349 domestic victims of sex trafficking who are children.
Labor Trafficking Specific sources
No venue reported
14) Caliber, ICF Report on Estimates of Human Trafficking into the U.S. (Clawson, 2005)
This report estimates that 46,849 victims are being trafficked for the purposes of labor exploitation
into the United States at the southwest border annually, based on an analysis of economic indicators
of eight countries in Central and South America: Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela. The original data from which this estimate was derived are
not disclosed in the report.
Agriculture
15) Oxfam Report on Agriculture (Oxfam America, 2004)
This source examines the protection of the human rights of workers in the U.S. agriculture industry.
It reports the existence of a slavery ring with 400 victims that operated in Florida, Georgia, and
South Carolina as of 2004. In addition, the report identified approximately 3,000 farm workers in
those states who have been suffering abuses from their employers, such as being beaten while
working. Assuming that all 400 workers in the slavery ring can be regarded as trafficking victims, but
that about 1,000 of the 3,000 are actual trafficking victims,42 we get a range of 400–1,000 victims in
2004.
41This assumes that 1 in every 3 reported alleged workers abuses is a trafficking case. This also conforms to our
following estimate on domestic workers from Pier, 2001, #50.
42 Farmland data was extracted from the USDA website, at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/
78
To extrapolate this number over the entire United States, we multiply by the ratio of farmland area
in the United States and farmland area in those three states: 922,095,840 farm acres in the U.S. /
24,271,448 farm acres in FL, SC, and GA.43 This yields an estimate of 15,196–37,991 victims
nationwide, of whom 14,589–36,471 (96 percent) are estimated to be foreign and 608–1,520 (4
percent) are estimated to be domestic.44
Domestic Work
16) Study of Domestic Workers in Washington, D.C. Metro Area (Pier, 2001)
This source provides counts of domestic workers who have reported being abused by their
employers in the Maryland/Washington, D.C. region.
CASA de Maryland, a Latino and immigration advocacy and assistance organization, has opened 30
cases on behalf of domestic workers with special visas against their employers in 1999. Its attorneys
estimate that during the same year, they have actually “spoken to or consulted three times that
number.” This information leads to the assumption that approximately 1 in every 3 calls is actually a
case of employer abuse.
Three additional organizations that provide legal services have reported the number of calls they
have received from migrant domestic workers alleging abuse by their employers:
• During 1991–1995, a Spanish Catholic center in Washington, D.C., received 12–15 calls per
month. Multiplied by 12, this amounts to 144 to 180 calls per year.
• A private attorney, working in Gaithersburg, Maryland, received about six calls per month
during 1995–2001. Multiplied by 12, this amounts to 72 calls per year.
• Between June and September of 2000, the campaign for Migrant Domestic Workers Rights
in Washington received approximately 22 calls. Multiplied by 3, this amounts to 66 calls per
year.
The total of these three additional sources amounts to 282–318 calls per year. Applying the
assumption that only 1 in 3 calls results in a case, these three sources add about 94–106 victims per
year. Together with the CASA de Maryland data, we get a total of 124–136 migrant domestic
workers who are being abused by their employers in the Maryland/D.C. region per year.45
We now turn to extrapolate these figures to the entire U.S. population. For this purpose, we take a
conservative assumption that this region actually includes Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and
Washington, D.C. We can then extrapolate to the entire United States by multiplying by the ratio
between the U.S. population and the population of these states, which according to the latest census
data is 20.5. This yields 2,541–2,787 migrant domestic workers who are being abused by their
employers in the United States per year.
43 For details on the calculation of the proportion of foreign and domestic victims see the appendix.
44 With no detailed statistical information about the nature of these abuses, we cannot say for sure that all of these
victims can be counted as victims of human trafficking as defined in the TVPA.

45 We assume that this is a relatively good approximation for the number per year.
79
17) Study of Traveling Magazine Crews (Urbina, 2007)
According to this source, there are between 2,500 and 30,000 young adults who are a part of a
traveling magazine sales crew at any given moment.46 The source specifies many abuses and coercive
methods by which these crew members are recruited and held. Assuming that 10 percent of the
members could be considered victims of severe human trafficking under the TVPA, we get an
estimated 25–300 victims per year.
Sex Trafficking Sources
No venue reported or multiple venues

18) Caliber, ICF Estimates of Human Trafficking in the U.S. (Clawson, 2007)
This report estimates the number of females trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation into
the mid-Atlantic region of the United States from 15 counties located in Eastern Europe (Albania,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland,
Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine) and the number of women trafficked for sex into the
United States at the southwest border from eight countries in Central and South America
(Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela). They
estimated 1,358 sex trafficking victims are trafficked into mid-Atlantic United States and 11,117 sex
trafficking victims are trafficked into the United States at the southwest border per year. If we add
1,358 to 11,117, we get a total of 12,475 foreign victims of sex trafficking per year, of whom 8,733
(70 percent) are estimated to be adults and 3,742 (30 percent) are estimated to be minors.
19) Kara Study of Sex Trafficking (Kara, 2009)

Based on field research and economic calculations, the author of this book estimates that in 2006
there were approximately 10,000 victims of sex trafficking in North America. The original data from
which this estimate were derived are not disclosed in the source. If we assume that Canada accounts
for 10 percent of the victims, there are approximately 9,000 victims of sex trafficking in the United
States in a given year. Of them 6,300 (70 percent) are estimated to be adults: 2,268 (36 percent)
foreign and 4,032 (64 percent) domestic, and 2,700 (30 percent) are estimated to be minors: 972 (36
percent) foreign and 1,728 (64 percent) domestic.
20) Acharya Study of Sex Trafficking (Acharya, 2006)

This study estimates that about 5,000 women aged 17–20 are being trafficked from Mexico into the
United States every year. The original data from which this estimate were derived are not disclosed
in the report. We estimate that 3,500 (70 percent) of them are adults and 1,500 (30 percent) are
minors.
21) Prostitution in Chicago (O’Leary and Howard, 2001)
46 For an account of how these proportions were calculated, see technical note 22.
80
This source provides the following estimates for the number of women and girls in prostitution per
year in the city of Chicago, according to specific venues: 800–1,000 in street prostitution, 1,000–
2,000 in escort services, 170 in massage parlors, and 625–1,275 in exotic dancing. To estimate the
number of victims of severe sex trafficking, we use an estimated proportion range of 25 to 50
percent.47 Taking 25 percent of the low estimate in the report and 50 percent of the high estimate,
we get:
Low High
Venue
estimate estimate
Street prostitution 200 500
Escort services 250 1000
Massage parlors 43 85
Exotic dancing 156 638
For each venue we can then estimate the numbers of adult vs. minor victims (70 and 30 percent
respectively), and then the number of foreign vs. domestic victims (36 and 64 percent respectively).
We get the following final estimate:
Adult Minor
Venue Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
Street prostitution 51 128 89 222 22 55 38 95
Escort services 64 255 111 445 27 109 48 191
Massage parlors 11 22 19 38 5 9 8 16
Exotic dancing 40 163 69 283 17 70 30 122
Total 166 567 288 988 71 243 124 424
In order to extrapolate these numbers for the entire U.S. population, we multiply by the ratio
between the U.S. population and the population of Chicago (97.2 according to the 2000 census), and
get the following estimated table:
Adult Minor
Venue Foreign Domestic Foreign Domestic
Street prostitution 4,962 12,404 8,640 21,600 2,128 5,320 3,706 9,264
Escort services 6,202 24,808 10,800 43,199 2,660 10,640 4,632 18,528
Massage parlors 1,054 2,109 1,836 3,672 452 904 787 1,575
Exotic dancing 3,876 15,815 6,750 27,540 1,663 6,783 2,895 11,812
Total 16,094 55,135 28,026 96,011 6,903 23,648 12,020 41,179
22) Thukral and Ditmore (Thukral, J. and Ditmore, M., 2005)
47 For an explanation of how we reached these estimates, see Appendix F.
81
This report deals with indoor prostitution in New York City. However, the data on trafficking
victims do not seem to be limited to indoor venues and is therefore included in this section. One
service provider who was interviewed for the study estimated that “since winter 2001,” they have
served 40–45 sex workers who they would classify as being involved in “forced prostitution.” The
report does not state when this information was given, but because it was published early in 2005
(March), we assume that the interview was conducted in the end of 2004. Under this assumption,
the information relates to a period of four whole years (2001–2004), and therefore needs to be
divided by four to get an annual average of 10–11 victims. Another service provider estimated that
“since summer 2003” they had three or four such clients. Assuming that this relates to a period of a
year and a half (mid-2003 to end of 2004), we divide by 1.5 and get an annual average of 2–3 victims.
Assuming that the two interviewed service providers did not serve the same victims, we add up the
numbers to a total of 12–14 victims per year in New York City. We estimate that 8–10 (70 percent)
of them are adults: 3-4 (36 percent) of foreign origin and 5-6 (64 percent) of domestic origin, and
that the other four are minors: 1 foreign and 3 domestic.48
We can extrapolate these data to the entire U.S. population by multiplying them by the ratio of the
U.S. population and the population of New York City, which is 35.1 according to the latest census
data (2000). This calculation yields 422–489 victims nationwide. We estimate that 295–342 (70
percent) of them are adults: 108–125 (36 percent) foreign and 187–217 (64 percent) domestic, and
126–147 are minors: 46–54 foreign and 80–93 domestic.
Street Prostitution
23) UCR data for juvenile arrests (Puzzanchera, Adams, and Kang, 2008)
The following data on the national number of arrests for offenses of prostitution and commercial
vice were extracted from the EZAUCR system (Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics)49:
Total 2000- Annual

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2006 average
Adults 86,300 79,400 78,200 73,800 86,100 83,300 78,100 565,200 80,743
Juveniles 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,800 1,600 1,700 10,700 1,529
48 These numbers are provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and are available
at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr. They differ slightly from the officially published Unified Crime Reports. On
top of separating the arrests of juveniles from the arrests of adults, OJJDP makes some reasonable assumptions to make
up for law enforcement agencies, which do not report to the UCR, or which report for only part of the year.
49 Miller, Eleanor M., Kim Romenesko, and Lisa Wondolkowski. 1993. The United States. In Prostitution: An International
Handbook on Trends, Problems, and Politics, edited by Nanette J. Davis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; Alexander,
Priscilla. 1987. Prostitution: A Difficult Issue for Feminists. In Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry, edited by
Frederique Delacoste and Priscilla Alexander. San Francisco: Cleis Press.
82
Although the data do not explicitly state this, we assume that the vast majority of these arrests
occurred on the street. We therefore categorized this data source under the venue of street
prostitution.
These figures can serve as a basis for estimating the number of women in prostitution. Because male
clients are also counted as arrestees for prostitution offenses, we first need to estimate their
proportion to eliminate them from our count. Several sources indicate that the about 90 percent of
the arrests are of the prostituted women and men, and only 10 percent are of clients.50 We therefore
reduce the annual average number of prostitution arrests of adults by 10 percent to 72,669. (We do
not do the same for the number of juveniles, because we assume most of the clients are adults and
would be arrested as such).
The UCR reports the governing offense, i.e. the most severe charge made in any single arrest. For
example, if someone was arrested for both prostitution (usually a misdemeanor) and cocaine
possession (usually a felony), the arrest would usually be reported in UCR as a drug possession arrest
rather than a prostitution arrest. We can adjust the data to reflect this by using Arrestee Drug Abuse
Monitoring (ADAM) data, which provide an empirical basis for estimating how often that happens.
During 2000–2002, ADAM surveyed adult women in booking facilities in 39 counties across the
country. The number of sampled arrestees who had prostitution as their governing charge was
1,373, and another 202 (an additional 15 percent) had prostitution as the secondary or tertiary
charge. We therefore augment the number of adult arrests by 15 percent, and get an estimated
83,360 arrests. (We do not perform the same calculation for juvenile arrests due to the lack of data
on drug use of juvenile arrestees).
The number of arrests is not the same as the number of people arrested, because a person could be
arrested multiple times in a single year. The best source we could locate to estimate the extent of
multiple arrests among women in prostitution is, again, the ADAM survey. Based on the answers of
551 adult women who have been arrested for prostitution between 2000 and 2002, the number of
arrests per year is 1.19.51 There are a few problems with using this number for our purposes.
Because the ADAM survey was designed to monitor drug use, all the respondents had to have used
at least one illicit drug in the year prior to taking the survey. Although evidence shows that most of
the women in street prostitution use drugs while in prostitution,52 some do not. Assuming that the
use of illicit drugs increases the chances of a woman in prostitution to get arrested, our estimate of
the average number of arrests per year may be biased upward. However, this estimation will result in
a lower number of victims and is therefore a conservative assumption. Dividing the number of
arrests by 1.19 arrests per year, we get 70,072 people with an appreciable probability of having a
prostitution arrest within one year. Because we do not have reliable information on the average
50 As calculated by Ryan Kling, based on Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000-2003.
Washington: National Institute of Justice.

51 Farley, Melissa, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, and Ufuk Sezgin. 1998. Prostitution in Five Countries:
Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Feminism & Psychology 8, no. 4: 405-426.
83
number of arrests per year for juveniles, we do not perform the same calculation for the juvenile
arrests.
Next, we need to establish how many of the adult arrestees could be counted as victims of severe
forms of human trafficking. According to the TVPA definition, all of the 1,529 juveniles arrested for
prostitution are such victims, and we estimate that 558 (36 percent) of them are of foreign origin
and 971 (64 percent) are of domestic origin.53
For the adult arrestees, we have several sources that can shed light on the proportion of victims:
• Raymond and Hughes (2001) interviewed adult women in prostitution from San Francisco,
New York, the Northern Midwest, the Northeast, and the Southeast. Of the 40 interviewees
in the sample, which included women of both foreign and domestic origin, 20 (50 percent)
reported that their pimp has control over the money they make and withholds money from
them.
• Dalla, Xia, and Kennedy (2003) interviewed 43 adult women in prostitution, and 17 of them
(39.5 percent) reported having been under the control of a pimp.
• Williamson and Cluse-Tolar,(2002) interviewed 21 adult women who self identified as

former prostitutes in Ohio, and six of them (28.5 percent) reported having been under the
control of a pimp.54
Although these scarce sources do not measure exactly the statistic we need, i.e. the proportion of
victims of severe human trafficking according to the TVPA among adult women in street
prostitution, we can use them to form a range for this proportion. Taking the range to be 25 to 50
percent of the 70,072 arrested women, we get an estimate of 17,518–35,036 trafficking victims. Of
them, we estimate that 6,390–12,780 (36 percent) are of foreign origin and 11,128–22,256 (64
percent) are of domestic origin.55
Strip Clubs
24) Raphael and Ashley (Raphael and Ashley, 2008)
For an estimate of trafficking victims among “exotic dancers” and people performing in strip clubs,
we used a compilation of strip clubs throughout the United States listed on a website catering to
53 None of these studies directly measures severe trafficking, i.e. the use of force, fraud, or coercion. However, these are
the best approximations we could find.
55There are no strong data on this matter, but one can speculate that the lifetime prevalence of prostitution among strip
club performers may be substantially higher than 25 percent, or that a higher percentage might occasionally or routinely
sell sex off-site. However, we are trying to restrict the venue-specific estimates to each venue as much as possible, to
minimize overlap across venues and thus “double counting,” which would inflate our rolled-up total estimate.
84
club patrons: http://www.tuscl.net/r.php?RID=7. We found 2,422 clubs listed and conducted a
cursory check of its accuracy by examining 30 listings for clubs in three states. Judging by the club
names and descriptions of “services,” it appears that the site lists strip clubs and no other kinds of
businesses. We have no way of knowing if the site undercounts or excludes some clubs. We made an
educated guess that prostitution occurs in a minimum of 25 percent of strip clubs, based on
anecdotal evidence from qualitative accounts of strip clubs and news accounts of occasional police
arrests for prostitution in such clubs. This figure yields a total estimate of 606 strip clubs that house
prostitution in the United States. We further estimated that there is an average of 20 women
dancing/stripping in each club (yielding a total of 12,120 performers), and estimate conservatively
that 25 percent of them engage in prostitution within the clubs56 (3,028). Finally, we again rely upon
Raphael and Ashley (2008) to assume that 35 percent of those providing prostitution in strip clubs
are trafficked (3,028 x .35). Thus, we estimate that there are 1,060 sex trafficking victims in strip
clubs throughout the United States. Applying the domestic and foreign multipliers yields:
1,060* .64 = 488 (domestic)
1,060*.36 = 382 (foreign)
Child Sex Trafficking Sources

No venue reported or multiple venues
26) Estes and Weiner (2001)
Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report: Dallas, Texas (Nicole Hay for Shared Hope
International, 2008) reported that the Dallas Police Department, Child Exploitation/High Risk
Victims & Trafficking Unit (CE/HRVTU) developed an investigative tool to identify high risk
victims (HRV) by flagging all minors who have run away from home four or more times in one year,
as well as any minors that are repeat victims of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation. In 2006,
CE/HRTVU identified 131 HRV cases, 65 of which involved prostitution. In 2007, CE/HRVTU
identified 189 HRV cases, 119 of which involved prostitution. Officers in the Dallas Police
Department are trained to notify CE/HRVTU immediately with any potential cases of DMST.
This study was used to develop multipliers to apply to Estes and Weiner to come up with an
estimate of the number of at-risk CSEC victims who are actually involved in prostitution annually.
In 2006 – 65 of 131 HRVs involved in prostitution = 49.6% = 50%
In 2007 – 119 of 189 HRVs involved in prostitution = 62.9% = 63%
Average % of juveniles involved in prostitution = .50+.63/2 = 57%
56 This point is not stated in the report, but it seems to us to be more accurate than to assume that the distribution of
foreign/domestic victims here is the same as in general statistics.
85
Estes and Weiner (2001) found that 244,181 (low scenario)—325,575 (high scenario) children
(domestic and foreign) are at risk of CSEC annually in the United States. These numbers were
derived using data on runaway/thrown away youth as well as victims of sexual abuse, therefore, the
findings from Hay 2008 would be a somewhat defensible multiplier. Using the 57 percent multiplier
from Hay of the number of HRVs who turn out to be involved in prostitution, we would get:
.57* 244,181 = 139,189 (low scenario) and .57* 325,575 = 185, 578 (high scenario) as an estimate of
the number of children at risk of CSEC who are involved in prostitution/child sex trafficking
annually in the United States.
Due to the paucity of youth-specific data, we use the same multiplier for foreign-born victims as we
did in the adult sex trafficking estimates. The multiplier for foreign-born victims at 36 percent
(=174/477) is from Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2007-2008 (Kyckelhahn,
Tracey, Allen Beck, and Thomas Cohen, 2009). Applying these multipliers to the findings above
results in:
139,189 *.36=50,108 (low scenario) foreign children at risk of CSEC in the United States who
become involved in prostitution/child sex trafficking annually in the United States
185,578 *.36=66,808 (high scenario) foreign children at risk of CSEC in the United States who
139,189*.64=89,081 (low scenario) domestic children at risk of CSEC in the United States who
185,578*.64=118,770 (high scenario) domestic children at risk of CSEC in the United States who
become involved in prostitution/child sex trafficking annually in the United States.
27) Small, et al. (2008)
Year Cases Total victims per Total foreign Total domestic

concluded in case concluded national victims victims
U.S. District (= # cases* 1.99 (= # victims per (=# victims per
Court victims per case) case*36%) case * 64%)
2000 243 243*1.99= 484 174 310
2001 250 498 179 319
2002 255 508 183 325
2003 254 506 182 324
2004 265 527 190 337
2005 306 609 219 390
Average 262 521 188 333
86
According to Small, et al., (2008), the number of suspects in federal cases that were investigated and
concluded under charges of child prostitution or sex trafficking was: 111 in 1998, 186 in 1999, 243
in 2000, 250 in 2001, 255 in 2002, 254 (2) in 2003, 265 (18) in 2004, and 306 (13) in 2005 (numbers
in parentheses present suspects in these cases that were investigated under the TVPA, i.e. 18 USC
1591). For purposes of the estimation, only those cases between 2000 (TVPA) and 2005 were
included. The methodology is presented in the table below.
28) Innocence Lost (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)
The Innocence Lost Initiative is an ongoing operation designed to curb domestic sex trafficking of
children. Between its inception in June 2003 through October 2008, the initiative resulted in the
identification and rescue of more than 575 victims. This figure yields an annual average of 108
victims. Because the Innocence Lost Initiative focuses on recovering children who are U.S. citizens,
we assume that all of the victims in this count are of domestic origin.57
29) Edwards, et al. (2006)

This report found that 3.5 percent (n=471; 95% CI 3.0-4.0) of adolescents featured in this nationally
representative study ever exchanged sex for drugs or money (during survey wave 1=1995), 0.2
percent (n=19; 95% CI .1-.2) reported exchanging at both waves (wave 2=1996).
To calculate national estimates, 2005 Census data of 41,896,732 youth (ages 10-19) was applied to
3.5 percent to result in a total estimate of 1,466,386.
41,896,732 youth 10-19 according to 2005 U.S. Census* 3.5%= 1,466,386
To ascertain breakdowns by foreign and domestic victims, the following multipliers were used:
64%*1,466,386= 938,487 estimated domestic victims of child sex trafficking
34%*1,466,386= 498,571 estimated foreign victims of child sex trafficking
** Important limitation: Census data includes those age 18 and 19 as well as those under 12 (7th
grade). Because the study focused on youth in 7th–12th grade, this figure is likely an overestimate.
Street Prostitution
30) Gragg et al. and Curtis et al. (Gragg et al., 2007; Curtis et. al., 2008)
These two studies were conducted in New York. First, we consider The New York Prevalence Study of
Commercially Sexually Exploited Youth (Gragg, et al., 2007). Because we use a better study later
regarding New York City, from Gragg, et al. we only consider the 399 cases of CSEC identified in
57 The counties are Chautauqua, Erie, Oneida, Onondaga, Schenectady, Warren, and Washington.
87
seven upstate New York counties.58 To extrapolate these upstate New York counties to the rest of
the state sans New York City, we first obtained the population of New York State (NYS) aside from
New York City (NYC), from 2005 U.S. Census data:
19,336,376 pop in NYS – 8,213,839 pop in NYC = 11,122,537 pop in NYS sans NYC
Next, we found that the 2005 population in our seven upstate counties was 2,022,754. To
extrapolate to the rest of the state, we multiplied the 399 CSEC cases by the ratio of total New York
State population sans New York City to the population in the seven upstate counties:
399 CSEC in 7 upstate counties * (11,122,537 pop in NYS sans NYC / 2,022,754 pop in 7 upstate
counties) = 2,194 cases of CSEC in NYS sans NYC
Next, from The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in New York City (Curtis, et al., 2008), we
used the estimate of 3,946 cases of CSEC in New York City per year. Combining the two figures,
the total number of cases of CSEC in New York State is:
2,194 cases in NYS sans NYC + 3,946 cases in NYC = 6,140 CSEC cases in New York State
We then use an extrapolation based on 2005 population for an estimate of CSEC within the United
States per year:
6,140 CSEC in New York State * [292,892,127 (pop in US in 2005) / 19,301,113 (pop in New York
State in 2005)] = 93,174 CSEC cases in United States per year.
The numbers presented above may also be a bit of an overestimate, because the Curtis, et al., 2008
study included persons age 18. Although there are other localized studies of cities or states that
could be used to produce national estimates in the manner we have described above, we believe that
the New York studies are the strongest methodologically and, when combined, have the advantage
of including a separate major city estimate and another statewide estimate that includes rural,
suburban, and urban areas. Of course, one can reasonably argue that New York is not a sound basis
to estimate cases across other regions of the United States, but the same argument applies to any of
the other state or city studies (e.g., Atlanta, Kentucky, and San Diego).
It is important to note that Gragg et al. based their estimate on surveys collected from and
interviews conducted with a number of local and state government agencies, juvenile detention
facilities, runaway and homeless youth service agencies, rape crisis centers, and child advocacy
centers in seven upstate New York counties--Chautauqua, Erie, Oneida, Onondaga, Schenectady,
Warren, and Washington. Curtis, et al. based their prevalence estimate on interviews with 249
prostituted youth in the five boroughs of New York City (Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx,
Staten Island) using the Respondent Driven Sampling method.
58 Kychelhahn, Beck, and Cohen, 2009: 61.
88
Lastly, these studies are categorized as “street prostitution” because that was the main venue
through which the children were identified. However, the children interviewed in the Curtis, et al.
study did indicate other venues through which they participated. This information is presented in the
tables below. We are unable to derive annual national estimates based on these numbers because
they represent venues of victimization across victims, rather than a unique victim associated with a
unique venue. It is important, therefore, for child sex trafficking estimates to delineate between
victims and victimizations.
31) Shared Hope International (2009)
This estimate of domestic CSEC cases is based upon data published by Shared Hope International
(SHI) in May 2009 (The National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: America's Prostituted Children).
We believe that building estimates on this foundation will produce lower estimates for a number of
reasons:
• The victims are primarily domestic.
• The counts are based upon cases investigated by local law enforcement, and as such…
o the victims are primarily those engaged in prostitution, and not other commercial sex
activity, and
o the data do not include cases known through non-law enforcement agencies (public
health, social services) or NGOs (private social service providers, counselors), as was
the case with the Estes and Weiner data identifying “at risk” populations.
Within the nine U.S. research SHI sites (one was a U.S. island territory and was excluded from our
estimate), we sought to find the number of domestic minor sex trafficking victims per year. The
table below reports numbers for the nine sites.
Yearly
Number of
Yearly number of 2005 area
Research site Time period suspected
multiplier suspected population
victims
victims
Dallas, TX 2007 150 1.00 150 1,245,855
Bexar County, TX 2005–2008 3–4 0.25 1 1,512,654
Tarrant County, TX 2000–2008 29 0.11 3 1,612,869
Clark County, NV 1994–2007 5,122 0.07 366 1,702,957
Independence/Kansas City, MO 2000–2008 227 0.11 25 1,724,059
Baton Rouge/New Orleans, LA 2000–2007 105 0.13 13 677,393
Salt Lake City, UT 1996–2008 83 0.08 6 176,869
Erie County, NY 2000–2008 74–84 0.11 9 924,748
Clearwater/Tampa Bay, FL 2000–2008 36 0.11 4 433,825
To establish the number of yearly suspected victims for each site, we multiplied the number of
suspected victims by the inverse of the number of years for which the victim data were collected.
89
To extrapolate the yearly number of victims to the entire United States, we:
1. Added the yearly number of suspected victims across the nine research sites (= 577)
2. Added the 2005 area population across the nine research sites (= 10,011,229)
3. Multiplied the 577 suspected victims across the nine research sites by the ratio of 2005 U.S.
population to 2005 population in the nine research sites [577 * (292,892,127/10,011,229)] =
16,894 suspected victims per year
32) Boyer (2008)

This report estimates that there are between 300 and 500 juveniles involved in prostitution in the
state of Washington. Of the 16 respondents to the social service provider survey, two (12.5 percent)
reported having cases of international trafficking. Assuming this is the proportion of foreign victims
within these cases, we get a low estimate of 37–62 foreign victims and 263–438 domestic victims.
We can then extrapolate these numbers to the entire U.S. population by multiplying them by the
ratio between the U.S. population and the Washington population. This yields an estimate of 1,767–
2,960 foreign victims and 12,557–20,913 domestic victims nationally.
Survival Sex
33) Greene (1999)
In a nationally representative study, Greene (1999) found that 27.5 percent of street youth and 9.5
percent of shelter youth have ever engaged in survival sex. The mean age is 16.1 for shelter youth
and 18.1 for street youth.
Hammer, et al. (2002) Runaway/Thrownaway children: National estimates and characteristics.

National Incident Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children, found that
“In 1999, an estimated 1,682,900 youth had a runaway/thrownaway episode.”
Greene’s findings were applied to Hammer’s study to yield total estimates of foreign and domestic
child sex trafficking victims:
27.5% * 1,682,900 = 471, 212 (high)
9.5% * 1,682,900 = 168,290 (low)
Multipliers for foreign and domestic victims were then applied:
471, 212 * 64% = 301,636 (high estimate of domestic child sex trafficking victims)
168,290 * 64% = 107,706 (low estimate of domestic child sex trafficking victims)
471,212 * 34% = 169,636 (high estimate of foreign child sex trafficking victims)
90
168,290 * 34% = 36,620 (low estimate of foreign child sex trafficking victims)
91
Appendix F: Computational Notes on the Calculation of Multipliers Used for Data in Tables 3-5
Some of the sources that were used for this report provided statistics on numbers of human
trafficking cases, but contained no information regarding the number of trafficking victims in these
cases. To make use of these sources, we needed to generate an estimate for the number of victims
per trafficking case. That was made possible by using information that was published in the Bureau
of Justice Statistics report, Characteristics of Suspected Human Trafficking Incidents, 2007-2008. The report
is based on data that were collected through the Human Trafficking Reporting System (HTRS)
during a period of 21 months (January 2007–September 2008). The report contains information on
1,229 trafficking incidents from anti-trafficking task forces nationwide.
The following data were extracted from the report:59
All sex Child sex Labor

Number of victims per
trafficking trafficking trafficking
incident
incidents incidents incidents
1 401 99 53
2 to 5 112 26 34
6 or More 26 5 15
Total incidents that
539 130 102
contain data on victims
No data reported 479 261 44
Labor trafficking Sex trafficking

Citizenship status
victims victims
U.S. citizen 3 302
U.S. national 0 1
Permanent resident 0 4
Undocumented alien 50 161
Qualified alien 24 9
No data reported 236 593
Total 313 1070
Labor trafficking Sex trafficking

Age
victims victims
17 or younger 9 184
18-24 27 251
25-34 47 124
35 or older 32 54
No data reported 198 457
Total 313 1070
59 Illicit drugs include marijuana, crack or powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or other drug such as LSD.
92
The combination of the first table with the totals in the second and third tables allows us to calculate
the average number of victims per case, by taking only the data from incidents that contain data on
victims. These are the results of the calculation:
• Labor trafficking—313 victims in 102 cases—an average of 3.07 victims per incident.
• Sex trafficking—1,070 victims in 539 cases—an average of 1.99 victims per incident.
• All trafficking—1,383 victims in 641 cases—an average of 2.16 victims per incident.
For the purpose of this report, we define domestic victims as U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals, and
foreign victims as permanent residents, qualified aliens, and undocumented aliens. Of the total 77
victims of labor trafficking for whom citizenship status is known, 3 are domestic and 74 are foreign.
Of the total 477 victims of sex trafficking for whom citizenship status is known, 303 are domestic
and 174 are foreign. This results in the following proportions:
• Labor trafficking—96 percent of the victims are foreign, and 4 percent are domestic.
• Sex trafficking—36 percent of the victims are foreign, and 64 percent are domestic.
• All trafficking—45 percent of the victims are foreign, and 55 percent are domestic.
We can also see that within the population of sex trafficking victims, 70 percent are adults and 30
percent are minors.
Calculation of UCR estimate for forced prostitution
Breakdown of prostitution #: Based on the UCR but is modified and compiled by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., and Kang, W.
2008. “Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994-2006.” Online. Available:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/). For each year, OJJDP separates the adult and juvenile
arrests. In addition, not all police agencies report to the UCR, and some only report for part of the
year. OJJDP makes some reasonable imputations for nonreporting and underreporting agencies.
Using OJJDP’s compilation of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) from 2000-–2006 to
compute an average number of adult 18 and over prostitution/commercialized arrests in the United
States each year. The number is:
(1/7) * (86,300 + 79,400 + 78,200 + 73,800 + 86,100 + 83,300 + 78,100) = 80,743
There are a number of caveats to consider regarding the proper use of these numbers:
1. Some juvenile trafficking victims may lie about their ages at arrest to receive services that
would normally be reserved for adults (e.g. jail), and to protect their pimps from prostituting
a minor or sex trafficking (far more serious offenses than adult prostitution). Unfortunately,
we found no estimates of the magnitude of this problem.
93
2. Crime in the United States also reports the number of other Sex Offense arrests per year. The
definition from the 2006 Crime in the United States is:
Sex offenses (except forcible rape, prostitution, and commercialized vice)—

Offenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like. Incest, indecent
exposure, and statutory rape are included. Attempts are included.
Including arrests for these offenses would be inapplicable and are excluded in our estimates
of sex trafficking.
Eliminating Solicitation Arrests from Prostitution/Commercialized Vice Arrests per Year
The number of prostitution/commercialized vice arrests include both provider and solicitation
arrests. From expert opinion (Shively and Kling), and their knowledge of data on solicitation arrests
in California, we would estimate roughly 90 percent of UCR arrests are arrests of providers (those
selling sex, mostly women). We estimate 72,669 arrests were of providers:
80,743 prostitution/commercial vice arrests * 90% are providers = 72,669 arrests of providers
Accounting for UCR Reporting Only the Governing Offense
The UCR reports the governing offense, or what is typically the most severe charge made in any
single arrest. For example, if someone were arrested for both prostitution (usually a misdemeanor)
and cocaine possession (usually a felony), the arrest would usually be reported in UCR as a drug
possession arrest rather than a prostitution arrest. Fortunately, the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM) data give us an empirical basis for estimating how often this happens. In 2000—2002,
ADAM surveyed women in booking facilities in 39 counties across the country. One of the ADAM
survey questions records the three most severe charges associated with the instant arrest for the
ADAM sample. From 2000—2002, 1,373 sampled booked arrestees had prostitution as their
governing charge, and another 202 had prostitution as the secondary or tertiary charge. Therefore,
we would expect roughly an additional 15 percent of arrests involving prostitution than reported by
the UCR:
[(1,373 primary + 202 secondary/tertiary) / 1,373 primary] * 100% = 115% arrests of the UCR
Applying the 115 percent multiplier to the 72,669 provider arrests, we get 83,360 total prostitution/
commercialized vice arrests per year.
Removing Instances of Multiple Arrests by a Provider
94
Anecdotally, we know that some providers are arrested more than once within a year. Knowing the
number of times a provider is arrested within a year allows us to remove instances of multiple arrests
by a provider. Additionally, multiyear studies that identify all prostitution arrestees may find that
providers actually are arrested less than once a year. We found three sources on the frequency of
arrest among commercial sex providers.
The first source comes from Street Prostitution in Raleigh, North Caroline (Weisel, et al. 2004):
[201 arrests over 17 months * (12 months/17 months)] / (148 Unique people generating the
arrests) = 0.959 arrests per year
Another estimate of the number of arrests per year appears in We Can Do Better: Helping Prostituted
Women and Girls in Grand Rapids (Raphael and Ashley, 2008):
[470 arrests over 24 months in 2000-2001 * (12 months/24 months)] / (70 Regular
prostitutes known to police in Grand Rapids) = 1.675 arrests per year
A final estimate is derived from the ADAM data. One of the ADAM survey questions is the number
of arrests each arrestee had during the 11 months prior to the arrest landing that person into the
ADAM survey. Because there are a large number of women surveyed with prostitution charges that
answer the question about arrest patterns in the 11 months prior to entry into the sample (551 over
three years), we can use this figure as another multiplier. Two caveats:
1. The women answering about prior arrests had to have used at least one illicit drug60 over the
12 months prior to the ADAM survey, which may bias upward the number of arrests per
year.
2. We do not take any heterogeneity of the number of arrests into account. We may compute a
better estimate of the number of arrests generated by each arrestee (see William Rhodes,
Ryan Kling, and Patrick Johnston. 2007. “Using Booking Data to Model Drug User Arrest
Rates: A Preliminary to Estimating the Prevalence of Chronic Drug Use.” In Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 23, no. 1), but have taken a simple average here.
Minding these caveats, we estimate 1.19 arrests per year:
(1/3) * (0.9 arrests/yr in 2000 + 1.1 arrests/yr in 2001 + 1.3 arrests/yr in 2002) * (12
months / 11 months) = 1.19 arrests/yr by arrestees involved in prostitution
Dividing 83,360 total prostitution/commercialized vice arrests per year, by the 1.19 arrests per year
by arrestees involved in prostitution, we get 70,072 people with an appreciable probability of having
a prostitution arrest within one year.
95

The Berlin Turnpike - US Human Trafficking Prevalence Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Berlin Turnpike - US Human Trafficking Prevalence Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Review of Existing Estimates of Victims of Human Trafficking in the United

States and Recommendations for Improving Research and Measurement of

March 31st, 2010

William Adams, M.P.P.

Michael Shively, Ph.D.

• Improving the collection of information on human trafficking by law enforcement, prosecutors

Table 1: Human Trafficking Venue Matrix ....................................................................................................................6

and Roland (2008), Shively, et al. (2008).

Foreign Victims Households

Analysis of the Assessed Studies

(Office of Attorney General, 2004).

and child labor trafficking victims.

Original estimate of human trafficking derived from secondary data 27

Original estimate of human trafficking derived from primary and 7

Federal law enforcement data

Federal victim service data

of these sources of data.

of these sources of data.

Three additional sources of information contained counts or estimates of labor trafficking

Economic Field research, interviews

Federal law enforcement data

Federal victim service data

National data collection and surveys

Gragg et al, 2007;

Federal law enforcement data

Federal victim service data

National data collection and survey

Discussion and Limitations of Findings

Recommendations for Improvement of Data Collection

• Enhance potential sources of data where information on human trafficking is

Recommendations for Future Research

• Conduct a feasibility study for a national victimization survey of human trafficking

• Improve the collection of information on human trafficking by law enforcement,

Appendix A: List of Assessed Sources

Appendix B: Assessment Criteria

Appendix C: Data Collection Methodology

Appendix D: Counts of Identified Sources Across Venues

Appendix E: Technical Notes for Data Tables 3–5

Appendix F: Technical Note on Calculations

Rotherham-Borus, M.J., H.G. Meyer-Baylburg, M. Rosario, C. Koopman, C.S. Haignere, T.M.

Torgoley, Shaheen P. 2006. “Trafficking and Forced Prostitution: A Manifestation of Modern

whereas a secondary source is derived from pre-existing information.

Foreign or domestic Escort service industry

Foreign (N=1) No venue reported 1

Human Trafficking Kyckelhahn,

Field research, interviews

Escort Arrest data in Chicago and O’Leary and

Survival sex - - - - 36,620 169,636 107,706 301,636 Greene, 1999 33

General Sources Used in Multiple Types of Human Trafficking Calculations

27 This calculation is based on the same source and is provided in Appendix F.

2) Civil Rights Division data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)

3) Federal Bureau of Investigation data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)

Total 2001- Annual

54 58 65 86 146 126 120 132 787 98

5) Office of Victims of Crime data (Office of the Attorney General, 2009)

6) Legal Services data (Office of the Attorney General, 2004–2009)

8) Federal Justice System Resource Center data (Motivans, 2006)

9) Northeastern University study of law enforcement responses to human trafficking (Farrell,

32 The multipliers are derived and explained in Appendix F

to Farrell, McDevitt, and Fahy, 2008 (see technical note 9 above).

11) Bales and Human Rights Center (2004 and 2005)

LT victims in 3 years ST victims in 3 years

Number of victims Percent reporting

Percent of Number of Average victims Total