413047-Underground-Commercial-Sex-Economy

Once all the stakeholder site visits had been completed and we had compiled our list of potential offender
respondents, we completed the necessary paperwork and human subject protection packages for
submission to the Federal Bureau of Prison’s Bureau Research Review Board (BRRB) and the state
departments of corrections’ Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of Washington, California, Texas, and
Colorado. As part of the human subjects protection package, we were required to provide an inmate
consent form that explained the purpose of the study and the risks and benefits to participating in this
study. The consent form explained that participation in the interview was voluntary and that the
participant’s responses would not be attributed to them or shared with law enforcement officials in a way
that would lead to individual identification. Please see appendix E for a copy of the consent form.
We received approval from the four state departments of corrections relatively quickly; however, it took
eight months—and several revisions—to gain approval from the Federal Bureau of Prison’s BRRB. The
biggest change to the original proposal was including an oversample from the general inmate population
as to not single out individuals who committed sex offenses, which could create a risk to their well-being.
Thus, an oversample list was created for each BOP facility visited. 24 Additionally, we initially proposed
providing a monetary incentive to the inmates that agreed to speak with us, but all the agencies denied
this request with the exception of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) which allowed us to
place $10 in each participant’s commissary.
Rather than requiring us to obtain consent from each incarcerated individual prior to going to the facility,
the BOP and California, Colorado and Texas DOCs allowed us to place the names of the inmates we
wanted to interview on a call out list. 25 This way, we could read the consent form person and they could
decide at that moment if they wanted to participate. Two weeks prior to visiting the facility, we sent the
individuals on our list (and in the case of BOP facilities, individuals on the oversample list) a letter
informing them of our study, that their participation was voluntary, and when we expected to visit their
facility (see appendix K for a copy of this letter). On the day of the scheduled interview, potential
participants were called individually to the interview area, which usually took place in an attorney room
located in the visitation room or a room in the education building. 26 At that time, we read the consent
form and they decided whether or not to participate. Interviews lasted between 30 to 90 minutes,
depending on the participant’s involvement in the UCSE and their willingness to disclose information.
The majority of interviews were conducted with two researchers, 27 with one leading the interview and the
other transcribing the interview directly onto a laptop, since audio equipment was not allowed into the
facility.
Because we learned from stakeholders early on that the commercial side to child pornography in the
United States had dramatically reduced over the last five to ten years, we decided to focus our efforts on
interviewing convicted pimps and traffickers. We abandoned our goal to interview 80 individuals (10 from
each site) who had been convicted of crimes related to child pornography.
Additionally, it became difficult to identify 10 sex workers in each of the research sites, 28 and we were
unable to achieve our goal of interviewing 80 sex workers. Not every site had a diversion program for
individuals arrested on prostitution-related charges, nor were there probation officers specifically
assigned to these individuals. As a result, we were able to interview a very limited number of sex workers.
Those who agreed to be interviewed were read a similar consent form as the inmates (see appendix I for
this version of the consent form) and each received a $50 gift card for their participation. We interviewed
24 Interviews with individuals that made up the oversample are not included in this report.
25 Washington State and Georgia required participant consent prior to visiting the facility which created a number of challenges,
particularly since it was difficult to convey the purpose, benefits, and risks of the study through a letter sent through the mail.
26 The only requirement to where the interview took place was that no one could be within earshot of the interview. However, a
correctional officer was always within sight.
27 Toward the end of the project, in order to reduce costs, the principal investigator conducted six site visits on her own.
28 Not every site had a prostitution diversion program or probation officers that were able to identify and/or recruit individuals who
had been charged with prostitution-related crimes.
15