Evaluation of the Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking Program
Supporting Statement A
Additional Information Collection Request
OMB No. 0970-0487
August 2018
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Mary Switzer Building
330 C Street, SW
Washington, DC, 20201
Table of Contents
Section
A.1 Necessity for the Data Collection 1
A.2 Purpose of Survey and Data Collection Procedures 3
A.3 Improved Information Technology to Reduce Burden 20
A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication 20
A.5 Involvement of Small Organizations 20
A.6 Consequences of Less-Frequent Data Collection 21
A.8 Federal Register Notice and Consultation 21
A.9 Incentives for Respondents 21
A.10 Privacy of Respondents 24
A.12 Estimates of Information Collection Burden 26
A.13 Cost Burden to Respondents or Record Keepers 27
A.14 Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government 27
A.16 Plan and Time Schedule for Information Collection, Tabulation, and Publication 27
A.17 Reasons Not to Display OMB Expiration Date 28
A.18 Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 28
Tables
A.2.2. Data Collection Instruments and Description 10
A.2.3. Crosswalk of Research Questions and Instruments 11
A.12.1. Estimated Annualized Burden Costs and Total for 2-Year Data Collection 26
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A—Instruments
A-1—Project Director Survey
A-2—Partner Survey
A-3—Case Manager Survey
A-4—Project Director Interview Guide #1
A-5—Project Director Interview Guide #2
A-6—Site Visit Stakeholder Interview Guide
A-7—Client Interview Guide
A-8—Email Invitation for Partners/Case Managers
A-9—Survey Reminder Email
A-10—Survey Reminder Call Script
Appendix B—60-Day Federal Register Notice
Status of study:
This data collection is part of an ongoing evaluation of the Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking (DVHT) Program. RTI collected data from the three FY 2015 DVHT demonstration projects under a prior Information Collection Request (OMB 0970-0487), the purpose of which was to describe how the projects met the goals of the DVHT Demonstration Program (described in Section A.2.1). All data collection approved for the study of the FY 2015 DVHT demonstration projects was completed in October 2017.
The purpose of the current request is to collect new information from the 13 FY 2016 DVHT Program awardees. It builds on the FY 2015 DVHT study to further the field’s understanding of promising service delivery strategies to meet the needs of domestic victims of human trafficking. The current study will expand on the previous evaluation by examining short- and long-term housing solutions, mental health and substance use treatment services, and survivor engagement; and describing service models implemented in various community and organizational contexts.
See section A.1.1 for the study background, A.2.1 for a more detailed overview of purpose and approach, A.2.2 for evaluation questions, A.2.3 for study design, including data collection methods, and Appendices A-1 through A-7 for data collection instruments.
What is being evaluated (program and context) and measured:
This evaluation is of the 13 DVHT Program awardees that received 3-year cooperative agreements in FY 2016 from the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Trafficking in Persons. The study will use qualitative and quantitative data to describe the 13 DVHT projects’ service models and how the projects met the DVHT Program objectives (see Section A.2.1). The study’s evaluation questions are in Section A.2.2.
Type of study:
This evaluation is a process evaluation and descriptive in nature.
Utility of the information collection:
The need to better understand provision of human trafficking services is great. Little is known about “promising practices” for human trafficking services in the United States. This evaluation will increase the field’s understanding of strategies to provide services to this critical population.
Consistent with ACF’s goals and evaluation policy, information from the evaluation will assist federal, state, and community policymakers, funders, and practitioners to make decisions about future intervention and prevention approaches to address domestic human trafficking, as well as inform the refinement of future evaluation strategies.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks approval for data collection as a component of a 3-year evaluation of 13 projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2016 under the Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking (DVHT) Program. To achieve the goals of the evaluation, the evaluation team (RTI International) will collect data through surveys with project directors, case managers, and project partners; telephone interviews with project directors; and in-person interviews with program staff, partners, and program clients during site visits to a subset of 8 project sites. This data collection builds on a previously approved evaluation of the FY 2015 DVHT demonstration grants (OMB 0970-0487).
In 2015, ACF’s Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) awarded three cooperative agreements to implement demonstration projects to improve services for domestic victims of human trafficking. The intent of the demonstration program is to improve organizational and community capacity to deliver trauma-informed, culturally relevant services for domestic victims of severe forms of human trafficking through coordinated case management, a system of referrals, and the formation of community partnerships.1,2 RTI collected data for the evaluation of the FY 2015 DVHT demonstration projects under a prior Information Collection Request (OMB 0970-0487). The data collection included interviews with project and partner agency staff; case narrative interviews with case managers; interviews with clients; informal observations of project and partner team meetings; and review of documents supplied by projects. All data collection approved for FY 2015 DVHT is complete.
In 2016, ACF’s Office of Trafficking in Persons (OTIP), in conjunction with FYSB, awarded 13 new cooperative agreements to expand existing projects or develop new initiatives for increasing outreach and identifying domestic victims of severe forms of human trafficking; and providing case management, trauma-informed direct services and assistance, and referrals to domestic trafficking victims through a collaborative, multi-disciplinary network of partners.3 The goals of the current cross-site process evaluation are to describe the ways in which projects achieve the goals of the DVHT Program and examine the various program models that projects develop to serve victims of human trafficking. Evaluation questions are focused on understanding projects’ organizational and service delivery models; project implementation, including partnership and collaboration development, services offered and received by victims, and strategies to identify and engage survivors; ways projects define and monitor program successes and outcomes; and implementation challenges, achievements, and lessons learned. Evaluation findings will offer guidance to federal, state, and community-level policymakers, funders, and practitioners for making decisions about future program models to serve domestic victims of human trafficking; produce valuable information about service delivery strategies for practitioners; as well as help inform evaluation strategies for future programs that serve trafficking victims.
In 2000, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 (22 U.S.C. §7101 et. seq.). The TVPA was reauthorized in 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2013. The TVPA established human trafficking as a federal crime and mobilized U.S. government agencies to wage a global anti-trafficking campaign, through prosecuting of traffickers, protecting victims, and preventing human trafficking. The Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States 2013-20174 defines the role of each federal agency in these efforts. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 amended the TVPA to make available grant funds for domestic victims of human trafficking.
Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery in which traffickers use force, fraud, or coercion to control victims for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts or labor services against his/her will.5 Estimates of the extent of domestic human trafficking range from 20,000 to 3 million victims in the United States, although prevalence estimates are plagued with problems of small sample sizes, single-area studies, and dependence on service providers to identify trafficking victims.6,7 A broad review of literature on human trafficking in the United States concluded that most of what is known focuses on international sex trafficking, with much less attention to domestic trafficking.8 Research also focuses largely on sex trafficking and, within sex trafficking, on females, particularly child victims. However, advocates have estimated that boys may be exploited in numbers nearly equal to girls.9 Available evidence on the extent of domestic labor trafficking is largely anecdotal, with little systematic research on its prevalence and nature.
Risk factors for human trafficking include childhood victimization (child abuse or neglect, dating violence, or rape), homelessness and running away, and drug abuse.10,11 The impact of trafficking on its victims is pervasive and long lasting, and victims’ trauma is partly the result of the everyday violence they face. Pimp-related violence is the most well-known, although violence comes from other sources as well, including customers, others working for the pimp, the public, and law enforcement.12,13 Violence is also common among labor victims, against whom job managers and “bosses” may use violence to keep victims working. Sexually exploited or trafficked youth are at substantial risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. The social and emotional risks are also significant, with studies reporting disproportionate levels of mental illness.14
The need to better understand provision of services is great. Service delivery for domestic victims of human trafficking is complicated by the hidden nature of the crime when victims are runaways or homeless; are identified as prostitutes; are not recognized as being trafficked; or do not disclose their exploitation because of fear of their exploiter, shame, or embarrassment.15 Many of the service needs that have been identified for trafficking victims emerged from work with vulnerable populations most likely to be trafficked, but little evidence exists on “best” or “promising” models or practices specifically for domestic victims of human trafficking. The proposed data collection will increase the field’s understanding of strategies to provide services to this critical population.
There are no legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. ACF is undertaking the collection at the discretion of the agency.
Previously Approved
As noted in section A.1, RTI conducted data collection for the cross-site process evaluation of the FY 2015 DVHT demonstration projects under a prior Information Collection Request (OMB 0970-0487), the purpose of which was to describe how the three demonstration projects met the goals of the DVHT Demonstration Program to build community capacity to address trafficking and identify and provide services to domestic victims of sex and labor trafficking. The evaluation explored four domains: community and organizational capacity; partnership composition and functioning; comprehensive victim-centered services; and survivor characteristics, experiences, and progress toward proximal outcomes. Data were collected through in-person interviews with project staff, partner agency staff, and clients; case narrative interviews with case managers; informal observations of project and partner team meetings; and a review of documents supplied by projects. All data collection approved for FY 2015 DVHT was completed in October 2017. The data provided valuable information about the experiences of the three demonstration projects, the individuals they served, and approaches they used to enhance organizational and community capacity, identify domestic victims of human trafficking, and meet victims’ needs through the delivery of case management and direct services. However, the findings are limited to three unique demonstration projects and are not generalizable to all survivors of human trafficking nor to all service programs for trafficking victims.
Current Request
The purpose of the current request is to collect new information, through a cross-site process evaluation, of 13 different projects across the United States awarded 3-year cooperative agreements in FY 2016 to serve domestic victims of human trafficking. It builds on the FY 2015 DVHT study to further the field’s understanding of promising service delivery strategies to meet the needs of domestic victims of human trafficking and the populations engaging in services. Specifically, this evaluation will assess and document the DVHT projects’ approaches to addressing the following DVHT Program objectives:
conduct community assessments to build capacity, create partnerships, and deliver comprehensive services to victims;
develop, strengthen, and expand comprehensive victim-centered services and case management at the community level;
address short- and long-term housing needs of victims;
identify, provide, or refer victims to mental health and substance use treatment services and
integrate survivor engagement in case management and service delivery strategies.
In addition to addressing the DVHT Program objectives, the evaluation design focuses on describing the service models implemented by projects in various community and organizational contexts (e.g., stand-alone, trafficking-specific programs versus integrated programs), including their relative challenges and strengths; clients’ perspectives on service engagement and receipt; projects’ successes, challenges, lessons learned; and promising practices for the field. Consistent with ACF’s goals and evaluation policy,1 information from the evaluation will assist federal, state, and community policymakers, funders, and practitioners to make decisions about future intervention and prevention approaches to address domestic human trafficking, as well as inform the refinement of future evaluation strategies.
The evaluation questions are organized by the following domains: program models; partnership and collaboration; service delivery, with a focus on housing, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and integrating human trafficking survivors in service development and delivery; and program success. Specific evaluation questions address each of these domains (see Table A.2.1). A detailed description of the study design and data collection methodology can be found in section A.2.3. Data collection will commence after receipt of OMB approval and is expected to continue through March 2020.
Table A.2.1. Evaluation Questions
Program Models |
Partnership and Collaboration
|
Service Delivery |
|
Service Delivery: Special Topics Housing Services |
|
|
|
Survivor Engagement |
|
Mental Health/Substance Abuse Treatment |
|
Program Success
|
Data collection will begin after the study team receives OMB approval and run through March 2020 (approximately two years). The study instruments are designed to collect data that are responsive to these new evaluation questions and topics of interest. Furthermore, to facilitate efficient collection of data (i.e., lower cost and less respondent burden) across the 13 FY16 project sites, data will be collected through Web-based surveys with project directors, case managers, and project partners (all 13 sites); telephone interviews (during site visits) with project directors (all 13 sites); and in-person interviews with project staff, partners, survivor leaders (i.e., human trafficking survivors who are involved in service development and/or delivery), and clients in a subset of 8 project sites (see Table A.2.2). This mixed methods approach will allow the evaluation to collect quantitative data across all 13 grantees and their partners (via surveys), while the qualitative methodology (interviews) will enable the evaluation team to “unpack” the quantitative data and document the nuances of program models, client services, and gain insight into promising models and service delivery practices that have a positive impact onclients’ lives. The data will also enable the research team to conduct a comparative analysis of the DVHT projects, the results of which will help guide ACF’s future approaches to addressing domestic human trafficking.
The evaluation team will collect data through the following instruments:
Project director web-based survey (Appendix A-1) includes questions about the DVHT project, DVHT project staff, partners, services offered to domestic trafficking victims, and service delivery strategies.
Partner web-based survey (Appendix A-2) includes questions pertaining to the partners’ role, collaboration with the DVHT project lead organization, and perceptions of project achievements.
Case manager web-based survey (Appendix A-3) includes questions about the case managers’ roles, case management activities, training received, trafficking clients’ service needs, and service delivery strategies.
Project director telephone interview #1 (Appendix A-4) includes questions that will expand on the project directors’ survey responses to obtain more detailed information about each DVHT project.
Project director telephone interview #2 (Appendix A-5) includes questions about the status of project implementation, changes (since the first interview), project successes and challenges, and lessons learned.
Site visit interview guide (Appendix A-6) includes questions about how the project functions in practice; service implementation; ways in which projects utilize partnerships; strategies projects use to engage survivor leaders, provide housing, and address mental health and substance use needs; project successes and challenges; and the lessons learned throughout project implementation.
Client interview guide (Appendix A-7) includes questions about program entry, services received, and program aspects clients liked and aspects that could be improved.
At the start of instrument administration, all respondents will be informed that their participation in the data collection is completely voluntary and that they may decline to answer any question or end their involvement at any time. Case managers and program partners will receive an invitation to participate in their respective surveys by email (Appendix A-8). We will email up to three survey reminders (Appendix A-9) to potential survey respondents. We will also make follow-up reminder telephone calls to respondents who have not completed their survey (Appendix A-10). Phone and in-person interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed with each respondent’s consent. If a respondent declines to have their interview recorded, a note-taker will take notes in real-time. Additional data collection details are available in Supporting Statement B, section B.2.
Additionally, RTI will request existing project documents from each of the 13 DVHT projects to review. This will not impose any additional burden, as RTI will request existing program materials and not ask for the materials in any specific format. RTI will also request each of the 13 DVHT projects’ ACF Performance Progress Reports (PPRs) from OTIP for review as they are available.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative data collected from the project director, case manager, and partner surveys will provide quantifiable information related to DVHT project models and operations, services offered and provided, project partnerships and collaboration, survivor engagement, and successes and challenges. Given the descriptive nature of the data, our quantitative analysis will primarily include descriptive statistics and cross tabulations to explore DVHT project characteristics by model type and expertise in providing services to domestic victims of human trafficking. Statisticians will use SAS software for quantitative data analysis.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The project director telephone interviews and site visit in-person interviews will provide descriptive answers to our evaluation questions. Therefore, our approach to qualitative analysis will be to use content analysis to summarize this descriptive qualitative data. Content analysis uses systematic methodology to code and analyze qualitative data.16 For the DVHT evaluation, we will develop a codebook of deductive codes (which will evolve to include additional inductive codes during the coding process),2 code the project director and site visit interviews, and generate and synthesize code reports. The code reports will be used to summarize findings and to draft text for our final report and other dissemination products.
Document review
RTI will design a simple abstraction template to be used to document relevant information contained in each document with respect to evaluation questions. The evaluation team will review each document and abstract key information that pertains to the evaluation questions. This information will be compiled in a qualitative database for easier retrieval.
This study is grounded in a process evaluation design and will focus on describing and comparing DVHT projects’ models, strategies, services, and lessons learned. Because the sample will be a nonprobability-based purposeful sample, we cannot generalize our findings to other DVHT programs, models, or service providers.
Nevertheless, the proposed research approach will result in a deep understanding of the 13 DVHT projects and allow for comparative analysis of projects’ service models service development and delivery strategies, and implementation approaches —a method that has not been used before with trafficking service programs. The resulting information will inform our understanding of promising practices for meeting the needs of domestic victims of human trafficking. The mixed methods research approach is designed to document comparable quantitative data across the 13 DVHT projects, coupled with nuanced qualitative information from telephone interviews with project directors and in-person interviews with project staff, partners, and clients (during site visits to a subset of project sites) that will help explain why and how the DVHT projects are being implemented within their organizational and community contexts. This study will serve as ongoing exploration of these issues and provide a foundation for future research related to understanding effective interventions for victims of human trafficking.
Table A.2.2 lists all data collection activities by the title used to describe the instrument throughout the entire package (which matches the file name of the instrument document) and in the same order as they are listed in the burden table in A.12. All instruments can be found in Appendix A-1 through A-7.
Table A.2.3 includes a cross-walk of how the instruments are connected to the research questions. Several of our research questions are answered through data collected from more than one instrument. All instruments cited here have been developed by the RTI evaluation team; we have not taken questions from other surveys.
Table A.2.2. Data Collection Instruments and Description
Instrument |
Description |
Total Number of Respondents |
Project Director Survey (A-1) |
Survey designed to collect information about each DVHT project from the DVHT project directors. |
13 |
Partner Agency Survey (A-2) |
Survey designed to collect information about DVHT partner roles, services, and perspectives from DVHT partner staff. |
260 |
Case Manager Survey (A-3) |
Survey designed to collect information about case management services and strategies from DVHT project case managers who provide direct service to DVHT clients. |
130 |
Project Director Interview #1 Guide (A-4) |
Project director interview guide designed to be used to interview DVHT project directors by phone about the nuances of their DVHT project. |
13 |
Project Director Interview #2 Guide (A-5) |
Project director interview guide designed to be used to interview DVHT project directors by phone about the updates and changes made to their program since the first projector interview and to collect reflections and lessons learned about the overall project. |
13 |
Site Visit Interview Guide (A-6) |
Key informant interview guide designed to be used to interview multiple stakeholders (project directors, case managers, survivor leaders, partners, and other staff) of the DVHT projects during site visits. |
120 |
Client Interview Guide (A-7) |
Key informant interview guide designed to be used to interview clients of the DVHT projects during site visits. |
40 |
Table A.2.3. Crosswalk of Research Questions and Instruments
Research Questions |
Instrument/s |
Project Models |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partnership and Collaboration |
|
|
|
|
|
Service Delivery |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service Delivery: Special Topics |
|
Housing Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survivor Engagement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mental Health/Substance Abuse Treatment |
|
|
|
Program Success |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our research design requires survey administration to collect quantitative data. We will program the surveys using Voxco survey software which will enable Web-based data collection. This approach will allow survey respondents to access the survey at their own convenience and from their work location, rather than scheduling a time to complete the survey and traveling to a specific location. Additionally, the survey will be programmed so that respondents can save their answers and return to finish the survey later.
Additionally, our data collection requires that we employ qualitative research methods through the use of key informant interviews. For the project director interviews, RTI will arrange two telephone calls with each project director. This will allow the evaluation team to collect data without imposing frequent in-person visits on the project staff. For both the project director interviews and the site visit interviews, RTI will audio record the interviews with respondent consent.
There are no other evaluations or research projects being conducted with the current DVHT projects. The previous information collection under 0970-0487 informed this current effort, but was specific to the FY15 DVHT demonstration projects involved. The current DVHT Program includes 13 unique projects, many of which have proposed to implement strategies that were not employed by demonstration projects. The current DVHT Program also differs from the previous DVHT demonstrations in that there are additional foci: meeting trafficking victims’ immediate and long-term housing, mental health, and substance use treatment needs; and integrating trafficking survivors into the development and delivery of services. Furthermore, many of the evaluation questions for the current evaluation are new, particularly the questions related to comparing the stand-alone project models and integrated project models, and those pertaining to targeted services (housing, mental health and substance use) and survivor engagement.
Many of the DVHT projects and their partners who will be included in this evaluation are small community-based organizations. To minimize any burden on these organizations resulting from the data collection process, the evaluation team will offer assistance with survey completion, will schedule all telephone interviews at the convenience of the project directors, schedule site visits during times that align with the DVHT projects’ schedules, and restrict the interview length to the minimum required. The evaluation team does not believe that data collection will impact the organizations’ operations or ability to serve clients.
The RTI evaluation team will collect data during one wave of surveys, two project director phone interviews, and one site visit to a subset of 8 DVHT projects. Surveying all 13 DVHT projects, their case managers, and project partners, allows RTI to analyze data from all projects. If the evaluation surveyed fewer respondents, we would not be able to fully describe all DVHT projects and compare the strengths and challenges of the program models. To minimize burden, we developed the survey instruments to be targeted to respondent types (i.e., project directors, case managers, and partner staff) to ensure that all questions asked would be relevant to each group. Interviewing the 13 project directors during full implementation and at the close of the project will allow the evaluation team to document how the project has adjusted services and their model over time; obtain successes, challenges, and lessons learned during different stages of project implementation; and allow evaluators to check and confirm early findings with project directors before their project is complete. Fewer telephone calls with project directors would increase the risk of recall error and limit the evaluation’s understanding of all 13 DVHT projects. The single site visit to a subset of 8 DVHT projects will permit a robust and deep examination of these projects through in-person interviews with multiple stakeholders. The site visit interviews with project directors, case managers, program partner staff, and program clients will enable the evaluation to collect multiple perspectives and allow for a 360-view of the project and delve into specific topics, such as how survivor engagement strategies function “on-the-ground.” Fewer site visits would hinder the evaluation team’s ability to fully and rigorously answer ACF’s evaluation questions.
There are no special circumstances for this data collection.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13 and OMB regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320 [60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995]), ACF published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s intention to request an OMB review of this information collection activity. This notice was published on March 20, 2018, Volume 83, Number 54, page 12195–12196, and provided a 60-day period for public comment. A copy of this notice is included in Appendix B. No substantive comments were received during the 60-day notice period. OPRE and OTIP staff provided consultation and feedback on the DVHT evaluation questions, design, and instruments.
Incentives are used to encourage participation and convey appreciation for participants’ contributions to the research. Numerous empirical studies have established that incentives can significantly increase participation rates.17,18,19,20,21 Moreover, incentives have been shown to reduce nonresponse bias. Without the use of incentives, we foresee the following challenges: (1) inability to recruit a sufficient sample of clients to participate in client interviews (i.e., low response rate), and (2) a less representative sample of clients who participate in client interviews (i.e., nonresponse bias). Additionally, we foresee challenges with developing buy-in among staff who will help us recruit clients for interviews if we do not provide an incentive to the clients. Compensating human trafficking victims for their input and feedback is widely accepted and touted as a “best practice” in the field of human trafficking service provision. For example, the State Department explains that trafficking survivors “deserve financial compensation for their time and expertise.”22 The ACF-funded National Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance Center (NHTTAC) recently published the Toolkit for Building Survivor-Informed Organizations. The toolkit emphasizes that survivors should be compensated fair market value “for any time or work intended to benefit the organization.”23 If no incentive is offered for a client interview for an evaluation, staff may be reluctant to try to help recruit indviduals to participate, as this may be viewed as not survivor-informed evaluation practice.
Based on our research team’s extensive experience conducting qualitative research of a similar nature with victims of human trafficking, we have learned that incentives are necessary to sufficiently attract participants who are human trafficking survivors engaged in services. In the DVHT evaluation of projects funded in FY 2015 (funded by ACF; OMB #0970-0487), clients were offered a $25 Visa Gift Card for participation in a 60-minute interview with very similar questions to the Client Interview Guide (Appendix A-7). This incentive helped the RTI evaluation team successfully interview 21 clients about their experiences in their respective DVHT program. We met our interviewee recruitment target for two of the three sites. Our goal was to conduct 5 to 10 client interviews per site and we interviewed 2, 7, and 12 clients, respectively, across three different sites. We received anecdotal feedback from clients and program staff that the incentives were vital for recruiting clients for the interviews. We did not meet our recruitment target in one site because of the small size of the site’s client pool; there were few clients to recruit for an interview.
Additionally, in other studies of similar populations by RTI, comparable amounts have been offered. In the Development and Evaluation of an Intervention to Reduce Victim’s Risk of Repeat Sexual Abuse/Assault (cooperative agreement sponsored by USDA NIFA), a $25 Amazon Gift Card was provided for participation in a 60-minute interview or 90-minute focus group. The team’s goal was to include a total of 60 airmen (including 5 to 8 female survivors and 5 to 8 male survivors) for their focus groups. They anticipated challenges with recruitment, but attribute the use of incentives as a key factor in successfully meeting their response rate goals. In the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) (funded by ACF; OMB # 0970-0202), NSCAW researchers had difficulties gaining cooperation from adult caregivers who were offered a $25 incentive for survey interviews that lasted 55 to 150 minutes. Because response rates were low at the outset of the NSCAW I baseline, NSCAW researchers requested and received OMB approval for an incentive increase to $50. NSCAW researchers attributed an increase in the response rate to the increased incentive. Other researchers have found that incentives are important for this population. Notably, in a national study that examined youth involvement in the sex trade, Swaner et al. (2016) started with $20 incentives and found that they had to increase to $40 to obtain the desired number of participants in key informant interviews that ranged from 30 minutes to two hours (Award No. 2009-MC-CX-0001 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice)24.
In reviewing OMB’s guidance on the factors that may justify provision of incentives to research participants3, we have determined that the following principles apply:
Improved coverage of specialized respondents, rare groups,
or minority populations: The proposed data collection
targets a hard-to-reach population from a small sample frame,
namely domestic victims of human trafficking who have received
services from three demonstration programs. Because of their
trafficking victimization experiences—either as minors
or through force, fraud, or coercion by their trafficker—they
are a vulnerable population who can be difficult to identify
and engage in services. As noted in the background section
(A.1.1), many victims of domestic human trafficking
experience trauma (caused by extreme violence, control, and
coercion), as well as face obstacles to meeting their basic
needs (e.g., safety, stable housing).
To further inform
programs that serve domestic victims of human trafficking, it
is imperative that sufficient numbers are included in the data
collection. Yet, based on our experience interviewing clients,
we know that clients can be challenging to engage in
qualitative research. Qualitative data collected from service
providers have shown that it can be challenging for
trafficking victim clients to regularly attend their case
management meetings and appointments.25,26
To participate in a research interview, participants may incur
travel expenses (such as mileage, parking, and tolls) and may
need to pay for childcare. Provision of a meaningful incentive
is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of victims of
domestic human trafficking are motivated to participate in the
study.
Data quality: If we are unable to recruit sufficient numbers of respondents to participate in the data collection, the quality of the data will be compromised. There may be differences in the characteristics and demographics of those willing to participate in an interview with no incentive versus those who are not, causing selection bias. For example, clients who may have additional challenges or hardships (e.g., limited transportation, childcare needs, a residence far away from the program) may be less willing to take the effort to participate in an interview versus clients with fewer challenges. Clients who have strong opinions about their services – positive or negative – may be more willing to participate in an interview without an incentive than clients with mixed opinions or who are more ambivalent about program services.
Reduced survey costs: We anticipate that without the incentive, more potential respondents will need to be recruited to achieve the desired cooperation rate. The client interviews will be conducted in-person and at the grantee site. If potential respondents do not show up for their interview, program staff will need to spend more time recruiting and research staff may need to make multiple trips and incur additional travel costs to obtain the desired number of respondents for the data collection results to be meaningful.
With these overarching principles in mind, we propose that a $25 gift card for a 60-minute client interview is appropriate, and necessary, for ensuring a sufficient number of study participants, high-quality data, and efficient use of resources. Additionally, we will provide a $25 gift card for individuals who serve as survivor leaders for the project, but are unpaid volunteer staff, and participate in a 90-minute site visit interview. Survivor leaders who are paid staff and participate in a site visit interview will not be offered an incentive.
Incentives will not be provided to DVHT project and partner agency staff. DVHT project and partner agency staff will be surveyed and interviewed during their normal workday hours about topics that are pertinent to their work (unlike clients and volunteer survivor leaders who will be interviewed on their own time).
The proposed information collection was reviewed by RTI’s Office of Research Protection. It was determined to not be research as defined by the U.S. federal human subjects’ regulations. The data collection was determined to be a program evaluation, and the Privacy Act is not applicable. RTI will prioritize privacy of participants in all phases of research, including surveys, project director interviews, stakeholder interviews, and client interviews.
Although the surveys will not include sensitive information, RTI will take measures to ensure respondents’ privacy. Survey questions do not ask for any personal information and information provided will be kept private. Survey responses will only be accessible to authorized RTI evaluation team members. All electronic data will be transmitted securely using an encrypted protocol (HTTPS) immediately upon completion of each survey and will be stored in RTI’s Enhanced Security Network and on RTI’s secure project shared drive. RTI will report survey results in aggregate or group survey results by type of DVHT project model. This will further prevent specific survey results about a single DVHT project from being shared outside of the DVHT evaluation team.
The qualitative project director and site visit interview guides do not include personal questions. With the respondent’s permission, the evaluation team will audio record and transcribe the interview. Before the interview starts, the interviewer will describe the purpose of the interview and summarize how the data will be used and privacy measures that are in place. Participants will be informed that their participation is voluntary, and that their identity and anything they say will be treated in a secure manner.
For client interviews, case managers will be asked to identify clients who meet the evaluation’s selection criteria (see Supporting Statement B, Section B.1) and offer them the chance to participate in an interview. Clients will be told that their decision to participate or not will have no effect on any services they receive from the program. This assurance will be repeated by the evaluation team member conducting the interview. Additionally, clients will be told that they may choose not to answer any questions and to stop the interview at any point. The RTI interviewer will explain to clients that information the client shares during the interview will be not be shared with program staff, nor will any information be reported that could individually identify them. The exception to privacy provisions will be any information indicating future harm to the client or another person.
All interviews will be conducted by two members of the RTI evaluation team. Interviews will be audio-recorded so that they can be transcribed, if the respondent agrees. Audio recordings and transcriptions will only identify respondents by DVHT project and respondent role. Transcripts will not include individuals’ names and if someone inadvertently identifies another individual during their interview, their name will be redacted. Audio recordings, notes, and transcripts will be stored on RTI’s private network, using a share drive that only authorized RTI evaluation team members can access. Stakeholder and client interview data will be summarized in dissemination documents in a manner that does not reveal respondents’ identities. Any hard copy interview notes taken during the site visits will be shredded after the notes have been typed up.
While the client interview guides do not include questions about clients’ or survivor leaders’ personal history or trafficking experiences, clients and survivor leaders may choose to share personal information when answering questions about their involvement in the DVHT project. Specifically, questions related to how clients entered the program and their opinions about what has or has not worked for them in the program may elicit responses that include personal information. Survivor leader questions related to how they got involved in the survivor leader program and if they were a previous client of the program may similarly elicit responses that include personal information. If a client or survivor leader discloses information about their trafficking experiences or other sensitive information, the interviewer will not probe or ask further questions about those experiences, and instead, will go to the next question in the interview guide.
There is a risk that some questions may make clients or survivor leaders feel uncomfortable when describing their experiences with the DVHT project. To minimize this risk and avoid distress to clients and survivor leaders during their interviews, RTI will take specific approaches for selecting both clients and survivor leaders. First, RTI will work closely with case managers to select clients to be invited to participate in interviews. To this end, interviews will be conducted only with clients who are recommended by DVHT projects as unlikely to be distressed by the interview (see Supporting Statement B, Section B.1 for more details).
Second, RTI will offer both clients and survivor leaders the opportunity to see their interview questions prior to the interview so they can decide if the interview is something in which they are prepared to participate. This approach acknowledges clients’ and survivor leaders’ autonomy and ability to make their own decisions about participating in the evaluation, while also providing transparency about the types of questions that we will ask them so they can assess the degree to which the questions will cause them distress.
Clients and survivor leaders will be told that their participation in any interviews is completely voluntary and that their decision to participate or will have no effect on any services they receive from the program (for clients) or on their employment status with the program (for survivor leaders). This assurance will be repeated by the evaluation team member conducting the interview, along with the fact that clients and survivor leaders may choose not to answer any questions and to stop the interview at any point. RTI interviewers will be trained to identify stress or discomfort among clients and survivor leaders and to offer to end the interview early if a client or survivor leader appears distressed. RTI will further protect client and survivor leader well-being by establishing site-specific protocols for responding to distressed clients or survivor leaders, specifying people to contact and actions to take if a client or survivor leader exhibits severe distress.
There will be no sensitive questions asked in the surveys, to the project directors, or during the site visit interviews to the other DVHT project staff and partners.
The data collection instruments will be used over the span of about 2 years, from OMB approvalto March 2020. We will collect data from 605 individuals over the 2-year data collection period. Respondents will be project directors, case managers, survivor leaders, and other staff from the 13 FY 2016 ACF-funded DVHT projects; staff (e.g., program managers, project directors) from partner organizations that are working with the 13 DVHT projects; and clients who have received services from a subset of 8 DVHT projects. Table A.12.1 provides the annual burden for this effort. The project director interviews, conducted twice during the data collection period, will also be conducted with the same respondents (or their replacement).
Table A.12.1. Estimated Annualized Burden Costs and Total for 2-Year Data Collection
Activity |
Total No. of Respondents |
Annual No. of Respondents |
No. of Responses per Respondent |
Average Burden per
Response |
Total Annual Burden Hours |
Hourly Wage Rate27 |
Total Annual |
Project Director Survey (A-1) |
13 |
7 |
1 |
.5 |
4 |
$34.07 |
$136.28 |
Partner Survey (A-2) |
260 |
130 |
1 |
.25 |
33 |
$34.07 |
$1,124.31 |
Case Manager Survey (A-3) |
130 |
65 |
1 |
.33 |
21 |
$23.02 |
$483.42 |
Project Director Interview #1 (A-4) |
13 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
14 |
$34.07 |
$476.98 |
Project Director Interview #2 (A-5) |
13 |
7 |
1 |
1.5 |
11 |
$34.07 |
$374.77 |
Site Visit Interview (A-6) |
136 |
68 |
1 |
1.5 |
102 |
$28.55 |
$2,912.10 |
Client Interview (A-7) |
40 |
20 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
$7.25 |
$145.00 |
|
Totals |
205 |
|
$5,652.86 |
|||
There are no additional costs to respondents, other than time spent (captured in A.12.1, above).
The estimated cost to the federal government for the proposed data collection and analysis is $594,000. This figure includes labor hours, and other direct costs (travel, photocopying, mailing, etc.) for both years of data collection. The annual cost is $297,000.
This is an additional information collection request under OMB #0970-0487.
The table below provides a timeline based on OMB approval in November 2018 with data collection beginning in November 2018. Specific dates are dependent on OMB approval.
Activities and Deliverables |
Anticipated Date |
Disseminate Project Director Survey |
November 2018 |
Identify case manager and partner staff to survey |
November 2018 |
Administer Case Manager and Partner Surveys |
December 2018 |
Survey data analysis |
December 2018—January 2019 |
Project Director Interview #1 |
January—February 2019 |
Initial qualitative data analysis |
January—March 2019 |
Selection of sub-set of 8 sites for the site visits |
March 2019 |
Site visit data collection |
April—July 2019 |
Project Director Interview #2 |
August—September 2019 |
Ongoing data analysis |
March 2019—February 2020 |
Draft final report |
March 2020 |
Revised final report |
June 2020 |
All instruments will display the expiration date for OMB approval.
No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.
1 The ACF evaluation policy was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2014: 79 FR 51574 (Aug. 29, 2014).
2 “Deductive codes” are based on a set of research questions or hypotheses and “inductive codes” are based on emerging findings.
1 Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families – Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2014). Demonstration Grants for Domestic Victims of Severe Human Trafficking, Funding Opportunity: HHS-2014-ACF-ACYF-TV-0839. Retrieved from https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/files/HHS-2014-ACF-ACYF-TV-0839_0.htm
2 Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families – Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2015). Demonstration Grants for Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking, Funding Opportunity: HHS-2015-ACF-ACYF-TV-0959. Retrieved from: https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/files/HHS-2015-ACF-ACYF-TV-0959_0.htm
33 Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families – Family and Youth Services Bureau. (2016). Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking Program, Funding Opportunity: HHS-2016-ACF-ACYF-TV-1186. Retrieved from: https://ami.grantsolutions.gov/files/HHS-2016-ACF-ACYF-TV-1186_0.pdf
4 President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. (2014). Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States 2013-2017. Retrieved from https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/FederalHumanTraffickingStrategicPlan.pdf
5 National Human Trafficking Hotline. (2017). https://humantraffickinghotline.org/type-trafficking/human-trafficking
6 Youth Advocate Program International. (1998). Children for sale: Youth involved in prostitution, pornography, and sex trafficking. Washington, DC: Author.
7 U.S. State Department. (2014). Trafficking in persons report. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2014/?utm_source=NEW+RESOURCE%3A+Trafficking+in+Persons+Report+2014&utm_campaign=2014.07.16+NEW+RESOURCE%3A+Trafficking+in+Persons+Report+2014+&utm_medium=email.
8 Clawson, H. J., Dutch, N., Solomon, A., & Goldblatt Grace, L. (2009). Human trafficking into and within the United States: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
9 Ending Child Slavery at the Source—USA. (2013) And boys too: An ECPAT-USA discussion paper about the lack of recognition of the commercial sexual exploitation of boys in the United States. Retrieved from https://d1qkyo3pi1c9bx.cloudfront.net/00028B1B-B0DB-4FCD-A991-219527535DAB/1b1293ef-1524-4f2c-b148-91db11379d11.pdf.
10 McClanahan, S. F., McClelland, G. M., Abram, K. M., & Teplin, L. A. (1999). Pathways into prostitution among female jail detainees and their implications for mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 50(12), 1606–1613.
11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF). (2013). Guidance to states and services on addressing human trafficking of children and youth in the United States. Retrieved from http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/library/docs/gateway/Blob/88109.pdf?w=NATIVE%28%27SIMPLE_SRCH+ph+is+%27%27Guidance+to+States+and+Services+on+Addressing+Human+Trafficking+of+Children+and+Youth+in+the+United+States.%27%27%27%29&upp=0&rpp=25&order=native%28%27year%2FDescend%27%29&r=1&m=1.
12 Torres, C. A., & Paz, N. (2012). Bad encounter line: A participatory action research project. Chicago, IL: Young Women's Empowerment Project.
13 Nixon, K., Tutty, L., Cowne, P., Gorkoff, K., and Ursel, J. (2002). The everyday occurrence: Violence in the lives of girls exploited through prostitution. Violence Against Women, 8(9):1016–1043.
14 Williamson, E., Dutch, N. M., & Clawson, H. J. (2008). Evidence-based mental health treatment for victims of human trafficking. Fairfax, VA: ICF International.
15 Klain, E. J. (1999). Prostitution of children and child-sex tourism: An analysis of domestic and international responses. Washington, DC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
16 Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2016). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. SAGE publications.
17 Abreu, D.A., & Winters, F. (1999). Using monetary incentives to reduce attrition in the survey of income and program participation. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association.
18 Singer, E. and Ye, C. (2013) The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys. The Annals, of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645 (1):112-141.
19 Shettle, C., & Mooney, G. (1999). Monetary incentives in U.S. government surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 231-250.
20 Greenbaum, T. L. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
21 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014) National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of methodological studies, 1971-2014. Rockville, ME: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, SAMHSA. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHmethodsSummary2013/NSDUHmethodsSummary2013.pdf
22 U.S. Department of State. (2017). Engaging Survivors of Human Trafficking. Fact Sheet by the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Available at: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/272324.pdf
23 National Human Trafficking Training and Technical Assistance Center. (2018). Toolkit for Building Survivor-Informed Organizations: Trauma-informed resources and survivor-informed practices to support and collaborate with survivors of human trafficking as professionals. Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/otip/toolkit_for_building_survivor_informed_organizations.pdf
24 Swaner, R., Labriola, M., Rempel, M., Walker, A., & Spadafore, J. (2016). Youth involvement in the sex trade: a national study. Center for Court Innovation. http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Youth%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Sex%20Trade_3.pdf
25 Gibbs, D. A., Walters, J. L. H., Lutnick, A., Miller, S., & Kluckman, M. (2015). Services to domestic minor victims of sex trafficking: Opportunities for engagement and support. Children and youth services review, 54, 1-7.
26 Hardison Walters, J. L., Krieger, K., Kluckman, M., Feinberg, R., Orme, S., Asefnia, N., and Gibbs, D. A. (2017). Evaluation of Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking Demonstration Projects: Final Report from the First Cohort of Projects. Report # 2017-57, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available here: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/evaluation-domestic-victims-human-trafficking-demonstration-projects-final-report-first-cohort-projects
27 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages. (2016, May). Mean hourly wage for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers (21-1023) for case managers; mean hourly wage for Social and Community Service Managers (11-9151) for project directors and partners; average hourly wage for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers (21-1023) and Community Service Managers (11-9151) for the site visit interview participants; and minimum wage for clients. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.toc.htm
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-20 |