The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction
The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction
online games and activities, and scholarly articles or other materials with an educational focus.Major federally funded research programs on the topic of Internet safety were included becausethe recommendations they yield contribute to public awareness about the topic.Web pages with lists of Internet safety rules with no other interactive content did not meet thecriteria for inclusion in this inventory. Software packages marketed to parents, schools, andlibraries for blocking, recording, or monitoring Internet usage by youth were also outside thescope of this inventory because they are products of private commercial enterprises.1. Methodology of ReviewThe search for English-language materials was conducted both online and through documentreview. The search engines Google and Yahoo were used to scan for the term “Internet safety,”and a list of hits was compiled for review. Programs that were linked to these sites as additionalresources also were included in the equivalent of an electronic “snowball sampling” strategy. 93The home pages of federal agencies and departments were included, and the page searchfunction, if available, was used to search for the term “Internet safety.” In addition, personsworking in federal agencies were asked to describe their own departments’ efforts in this area. Inall, 18 federally funded programs were identified, 16 of which are educational programs forchildren, youth, or adults. Two are federally funded research projects that includerecommendations to prevent the online victimization of children. (See appendix 1 for adescription of all 18 federally funded programs.) Appendix 2 lists a representative (but notexhaustive) set of nonfederally funded Internet safety programs. It is not within the scope of thisinventory to discuss these programs in detail or to evaluate the programs identified.Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 108–447, this inventory was prepared in coordination with theCoordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. On January 7, 2005, J.Robert Flores, OJJDP Administrator and Vice Chair of the Coordinating Council, sent a letter toCoordinating Council members requesting, among other things, their cooperation in preparingthis report. Mr. Flores also discussed the preparation of the inventory at the meeting of theCoordinating Council on March 4, 2005. OJJDP appreciates the cooperation of Council memberagencies in providing and reviewing information incorporated in this report.a. History of Federal Involvement in Internet Safety Programs for YouthThe federal government’s first broad foray into the field of Internet safety for children wasmarked by the passage of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA). COPA created acommission to “identify technological or other methods that will help reduce access by minorsthat is harmful to minors on the Internet.” The COPA Commission was charged with evaluating93 Snowball sampling is an approach where informants are asked to identify other persons knowledgeable about thetopic of study. When these persons are interviewed the researcher accumulates more and more information about thetopic. The chain of “recommended informants” initially diverges, but finally converges as a few key persons emergeas the most frequently mentioned names. Patton, Michael Quinn (1990). Qualitative Research & EvaluationMethods. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 237.111
the accessibility, cost, and effectiveness of technology designed to prevent children fromaccessing sexually explicit material over the Internet and also with assessing the possible effectson privacy of that technology. The commission released its final report in 2000, reporting on theviability of filtering and blocking services, labeling and rating services, age verificationstrategies, “green spaces” containing only material appropriate to children, monitoring and timelimitingtechnologies, acceptable-use policies and family Internet- use contracts, and options formore vigorous prosecution of persons who distribute illegal online material.b. Programs Identified for This InventoryThe 18 programs identified through the search methodology are described below. They areprimarily organized according to funder and secondarily organized by function (educationalprograms first, research programs second). The narrative descriptions are based on informationprovided in the referenced Web sites. Note that inclusion in the inventory does not constitute anendorsement. In producing this inventory, no attempt has been made to evaluate the content oreffectiveness of any program.2. U.S. Department of Justice Funded Programsa. i-SAFE AmericaProgram name: • i-SAFE America, Inc.Contact • www.isafe.orginformation:Funder:• U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency PreventionAudience: • Children and youth grades K–12Focus/scope: • Safety in online relationships; avoiding pornography and otheroffensive materials; copyright, plagiarism, and intellectual propertytheft; Internet citizenship; cyberbullying; identity theft and privacyconcerns; hacking and malicious programmingMedia: • Workbooks and Web-cast videos for students; instructor materialsDelivery: • Classroomi-SAFE America, Inc., a nonprofit foundation founded in 1998, is dedicated to educating andempowering youth to safely and responsibly take control of their Internet experiences. i-SAFEproduces and distributes a curriculum for classroom use in grades K–12. The i-SAFE program isdesigned to teach students to recognize and avoid dangerous, destructive, or unlawful behavioronline and to respond appropriately. The i-SAFE curriculum includes online exercises andactivities, pen-and-paper activities, and class projects. Training and technical assistance forteachers are provided free of charge.112
- Page 67 and 68: • Providing training and technica
- Page 69 and 70: Table 1 : ICAC Task Force Agencies
- Page 71 and 72: State Task Force Agency Number of T
- Page 73 and 74: State Agency FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 200
- Page 75 and 76: State Agency FY2008#AZCACACACACACOC
- Page 77 and 78: Number of Criminal Referrals to Uni
- Page 79 and 80: d. Number of local prosecutions and
- Page 81 and 82: State Agency FY 2008# of Cases Refe
- Page 83 and 84: State Agency FY 2008 Jan.-June 2009
- Page 85 and 86: 8. Number and type of ICAC Task For
- Page 87 and 88: ICAC Undercover Chat 4 Regional 9.2
- Page 89 and 90: has developed highly successful ini
- Page 91 and 92: field offices, both domestic and fo
- Page 93 and 94: 2. Department of Defense’s Effort
- Page 95 and 96: of a mail circular. Since the progr
- Page 97 and 98: • The Street Outreach Program fun
- Page 99 and 100: the Defense Computer Forensic Labor
- Page 101 and 102: • Distributes photographs and des
- Page 103 and 104: iii. Enough Is EnoughEnough Is Enou
- Page 105 and 106: 1. Overarching Efforts to Coordinat
- Page 107 and 108: combine resources and expertise on
- Page 109 and 110: United States has submitted annual
- Page 111 and 112: CEOS has worked with foreign law en
- Page 113 and 114: . Department of Homeland Security
- Page 115 and 116: Finally, G/TIP has worked extensive
- Page 117: F. Review of Internet Safety Progra
- Page 121 and 122: activity by predators searching for
- Page 123 and 124: 3. Federal Trade Commission and Dep
- Page 125 and 126: Funder: • U.S. Department of Agri
- Page 127 and 128: Delivery: • Online games; printab
- Page 129 and 130: TABLE 1: FEDERALLY FUNDED INTERNET
- Page 131 and 132: Program/Product NameandContactInfor
- Page 133 and 134: TABLE 2: SAMPLE OF PRIVATE NONPROFI
- Page 135 and 136: Program/Product NameProducerFor Kid
- Page 137 and 138: TABLE 1: PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS OF
- Page 139 and 140: FY 2011. The primary forensics resp
- Page 141 and 142: The DEU is the principal group resp
- Page 143 and 144: CD/DVDs. The CFS has the capability
- Page 145 and 146: First, the Department will continue
- Page 147 and 148: and the Innocence Lost task forces,
- Page 149 and 150: deconflict cases, and share informa
- Page 151 and 152: with the ICACs to help increase the
- Page 153 and 154: from Landslide’s business premise
- Page 155 and 156: victimized children worldwide, incl
- Page 157 and 158: association, was arrested after the
- Page 159 and 160: is transnational in scope; cooperat
- Page 161 and 162: Over the course of their communicat
- Page 163 and 164: An ICE investigation resulted in th
- Page 165 and 166: U.S. v. RichardsonICE PRESS RELEASE
- Page 167 and 168: APPENDIX C THREAT ASSESSMENT: ACADE
online games <strong>and</strong> activities, <strong>and</strong> scholarly articles or other materials with an educational focus.Major federally funded research programs on the topic of Internet safety were included becausethe recommendations they yield contribute to public awareness about the topic.Web pages with lists of Internet safety rules with no other interactive content did not meet thecriteria <strong>for</strong> inclusion in this inventory. Software packages marketed to parents, schools, <strong>and</strong>libraries <strong>for</strong> blocking, recording, or monitoring Internet usage by youth were also outside thescope of this inventory because they are products of private commercial enterprises.1. Methodology of Review<strong>The</strong> search <strong>for</strong> English-language materials was conducted both online <strong>and</strong> through documentreview. <strong>The</strong> search engines Google <strong>and</strong> Yahoo were used to scan <strong>for</strong> the term “Internet safety,”<strong>and</strong> a list of hits was compiled <strong>for</strong> review. Programs that were linked to these sites as additionalresources also were included in the equivalent of an electronic “snowball sampling” strategy. 93<strong>The</strong> home pages of federal agencies <strong>and</strong> departments were included, <strong>and</strong> the page searchfunction, if available, was used to search <strong>for</strong> the term “Internet safety.” In addition, personsworking in federal agencies were asked to describe their own departments’ ef<strong>for</strong>ts in this area. Inall, 18 federally funded programs were identified, 16 of which are educational programs <strong>for</strong>children, youth, or adults. Two are federally funded research projects that includerecommendations to prevent the online victimization of children. (See appendix 1 <strong>for</strong> adescription of all 18 federally funded programs.) Appendix 2 lists a representative (but notexhaustive) set of nonfederally funded Internet safety programs. It is not within the scope of thisinventory to discuss these programs in detail or to evaluate the programs identified.Pursuant to Pub. L. No. 108–447, this inventory was prepared in coordination with theCoordinating Council on Juvenile Justice <strong>and</strong> Delinquency <strong>Prevention</strong>. On January 7, 2005, J.Robert Flores, OJJDP Administrator <strong>and</strong> Vice Chair of the Coordinating Council, sent a letter toCoordinating Council members requesting, among other things, their cooperation in preparingthis report. Mr. Flores also discussed the preparation of the inventory at the meeting of theCoordinating Council on March 4, 2005. OJJDP appreciates the cooperation of Council memberagencies in providing <strong>and</strong> reviewing in<strong>for</strong>mation incorporated in this report.a. History of Federal Involvement in Internet Safety Programs <strong>for</strong> Youth<strong>The</strong> federal government’s first broad <strong>for</strong>ay into the field of Internet safety <strong>for</strong> children wasmarked by the passage of the <strong>Child</strong> Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA). COPA created acommission to “identify technological or other methods that will help reduce access by minorsthat is harmful to minors on the Internet.” <strong>The</strong> COPA Commission was charged with evaluating93 Snowball sampling is an approach where in<strong>for</strong>mants are asked to identify other persons knowledgeable about thetopic of study. When these persons are interviewed the researcher accumulates more <strong>and</strong> more in<strong>for</strong>mation about thetopic. <strong>The</strong> chain of “recommended in<strong>for</strong>mants” initially diverges, but finally converges as a few key persons emergeas the most frequently mentioned names. Patton, Michael Quinn (1990). Qualitative Research & EvaluationMethods. Sage: Thous<strong>and</strong> Oaks, CA, p. 237.111