Bill Overview
Title: NTZ Act
Description: This bill establishes an enhanced penalty—an additional prison term of up to five years—for certain interstate human trafficking offenses or coercion of sexual activity that occurs in a school zone or on or within 1,000 feet of a premises on which a school-sponsored activity is taking place or of a premises owned by an institution of higher education.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Victims of human trafficking
Estimated Size: 10360
- The bill targets human trafficking and coercion of sexual activity near schools and higher education institutions.
- Offenders of human trafficking laws in specified zones will face enhanced penalties.
- Individuals living near or attending schools and higher education institutions could be indirectly impacted due to changes in crime rates.
- Law enforcement agencies will need to adapt to enforce new zoning rules.
- There were an estimated 40.3 million victims of human trafficking globally in 2016, including both adults and minors, as reported by the International Labour Organization and the Walk Free Foundation.
- There were around 1 billion students globally, according to UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Reasoning
- The NTZ Act specifically targets human trafficking and crimes related to coercion in school zones, impacting neighborhoods around educational institutions extensively.
- Given the US has approximately 76.4 million students, the geographical application area is significant although the direct target of policy is specific to trafficking crimes.
- While this policy focuses on traffickers and predators, indirect effects could involve feelings of safety or stress among students, educators, and nearby residents, influencing perceived wellbeing.
- Law enforcement agencies will incur costs to adapt to the increased regulation and enforcement demands posed by this NTZ Act.
- The financial budget and timeframe suggest limited resource allocation across enforcement, requiring strategic implementation to maximize coverage and impact efficiently.
Simulated Interviews
college student (New York, NY)
Age: 20 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved about the NTZ Act because it shows the government is serious about making campuses safer.
- However, I'm concerned about how the enforcement will work in practice as campuses are large and open.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
high school teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new penalties under the NTZ Act should help reduce the incidents of trafficking near our school premises, which has been an ongoing issue.
- While the policy is promising, I am concerned about adequate law enforcement presence and follow through.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
social worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that NTZ Act will create safer environments for vulnerable kids, but it needs to be paired with programs offering support for survivors.
- Often, these laws are enforcement-heavy without enough focus on victim support.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing penalties is a fair step, but I feel like more attention should go to preventive measures and community awareness.
- It is crucial that more focus is put on significant outreach within educational communities to help prevent exploitation.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
police officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The NTZ Act could help with deterrence, but practical implementation will require significant resources.
- I hope our precinct will receive the necessary budget increase to effectively enforce these new rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
high school student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel a bit safer knowing that the government is doing more to protect students.
- I hope these new rules will keep people like me and my friends out of harm's way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
school administrator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law strengthens the message that our government is committed to student safety, but I'm wary about the financial strain it might place on already stretched budgets for enforcement.
- There needs to be a balance between punishment and preventive education for students.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
nonprofit director (Newark, NJ)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support harsher penalties for traffickers, we still need consistent funding for survivor support and education projects.
- Policing alone won't fix the systemic issues behind trafficking.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
lawyer (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The NTZ Act increases sentence risks for clients, necessitating a fresh approach to defense strategies.
- The increase in legal work relating to trafficking areas near schools may overwhelm public defense resources.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
community advocate (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's heartening to see stronger laws that prioritize schoolchildren's safety, but this act could also risk diverting attention from other vulnerable groups in non-school areas.
- My fear is that the isolated scope may offer traffickers targeting opportunities in less-guarded areas.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $27500000 (Low: $22500000, High: $32500000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Increased judicial and imprisonment costs due to additional penalties.
- Potential shifts in crime patterns near educational institutions.
- Impact on community perceptions of safety around school zones.