Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6420

Bill Overview

Title: Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act

Description: This bill expands requirements for fighting human trafficking that apply to foreign countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance. (The President is authorized to reduce assistance to, or take other actions against, countries that fail to meet such requirements and are not making significant efforts to do so.) The Department of State, when evaluating whether a country has met such requirements, shall assess whether the country has made serious efforts to prohibit the purchase of commercial sex acts if the government has authority to do so, whereas currently the State Department must assess whether a country has made serious efforts to reduce such activities. The State Department shall also assess whether a country has made serious efforts to (1) educate buyers of commercial sex acts on how traffickers exploit prostituted persons, and (2) ensure that anti-trafficking training and provisions are incorporated into codes of conduct for government staff.

Sponsors: Rep. Wagner, Ann [R-MO-2]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals at risk of being sex trafficked or involved in commercial sex acts

Estimated Size: 1250000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Social Worker (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy is a step in the right direction as it targets the root demand of trafficking.
  • Being directly involved in rehabilitation, I see the need for international cooperation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Tech Industry Professional (Austin, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's important to support international efforts against trafficking; it can create safer environments globally.
  • Not sure how directly I'll be impacted, aside from feeling better about international engagements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 7

Legal Advocate (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • International policies like this make strides in setting global standards against trafficking.
  • As an advocate, this policy could enhance collaborative efforts across countries.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 7

Retired Businessman (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe this policy is necessary to push countries to act more responsibly regarding trafficking.
  • I am retired, but I feel responsible business practices can be influenced by such policies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

University Student (Seattle, WA)

Age: 21 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is aligned with global human rights values I believe in.
  • Despite being a student, I'm aware that global issues have local impacts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Sex Worker (Chicago, IL)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this can indirectly affect my work if global demand for services changes.
  • I'm concerned about the potential for increased policing even if it targets international actors primarily.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Government Employee (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I know this policy will directly impact my work as it adds more evaluation criteria.
  • U.S. foreign policy plays a crucial role in influencing international anti-trafficking measures.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Non-profit Director (Portland, OR)

Age: 54 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy may enhance international cooperation and fund more projects abroad.
  • Increased obligations for foreign countries could set useful precedents at home.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Journalist (Detroit, MI)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this are crucial as they target demand, an often overlooked facet of trafficking.
  • Public awareness and policy change must go hand-in-hand.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Tech Developer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 31 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I focus more on the tech side, the importance of such international policies is evident.
  • Reduction in trafficking demand is a cause worth supporting and developing secure tech solutions for.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 7

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)

Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $61000000)

Year 3: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)

Year 5: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $64000000)

Year 10: $57000000 (Low: $47000000, High: $67000000)

Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $85000000)

Key Considerations