Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9616

Bill Overview

Title: Preventing Child Sex Abuse Act of 2022

Description: This bill makes changes to the federal law prohibiting child sexual tourism. First, the bill revises the specific intent required for certain offenses involving interstate or foreign travel to engage in or facilitate illicit sexual conduct. Specifically, this bill requires the government to prove that an individual traveled (or facilitated travel) with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (currently, with a motivating purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct). Further, it specifies that the term intent is to be construed as any intention to engage in illicit sexual conduct at the time of the travel. Second, the bill establishes new criminal offenses for acts in furtherance of illicit sexual conduct by an officer, director, employee, or agent of an organization through his or her connection to or affiliation with the organization. A violation is subject to a fine, a prison term of up to 30 years, or both. Finally, the bill specifies that the term sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense does not require interpersonal physical contact.

Sponsors: Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals vulnerable to child sex abuse

Estimated Size: 400000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

International Tour Operator (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The new law is a necessary step to curb a serious issue.
  • Our company has to adjust our policies to comply, which includes additional training and monitoring.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 7 4

Child Protection Advocate (Washington, DC)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a big leap forward in protecting vulnerable children.
  • Securing consistent funding and implementing further resources is key.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 5
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 9 5
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 8 3

Lawyer specializing in Human Rights (New York, NY)

Age: 29 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This legislation fills significant legal gaps which previously allowed predators to escape justice.
  • It will also add to caseloads as law enforcers and courts adjust to the new legal landscape.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 4
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Federal Law Enforcement Officer (Miami, FL)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The changes articulate a greater focus on international offenders, empowering us to act more decisively.
  • Training and operational procedures will need updating.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 7 3

Tech Company Executive (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Stronger legislation complements our efforts in tech to keep children safe online.
  • There might be increased demand for software services and collaborations with law enforcement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Airline Pilot (Dallas, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy's focus on travel means more regulations for our industry.
  • Increased vigilance required can be both a burden and a tool for prevention.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Social Worker (Chicago, IL)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy aids in creating safer environments for vulnerable children, an area my work deeply connects to.
  • Availability of resources and sufficient funding to support these changes is crucial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 4
Year 3 8 4
Year 5 8 3
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 8 2

Retired School Teacher (Houston, TX)

Age: 56 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I'm not directly affected, knowing our communities and children are better protected lifts a weight off many shoulders.
  • Continued community education on these changes will enhance effectiveness.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 4

University Student (Newark, NJ)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The legislation is an important aspect of future career paths in criminal justice.
  • Understanding the changes impacts how we approach law enforcement and social work.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Pastor (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Rehabilitation and stricter laws must go hand in hand to prevent recidivism.
  • Resources need to address root causes of such deviant behavior.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $15750000, High: $31500000)

Year 3: $22050000 (Low: $16537500, High: $33075000)

Year 5: $24310000 (Low: $18232500, High: $36547500)

Year 10: $29601000 (Low: $22253000, High: $44551500)

Year 100: $117375820 (Low: $88203470, High: $176562230)

Key Considerations