Proceedings of a Workshop
Exploring the Development of a U.S. Department of Labor Research Strategy on Child Labor and Forced Labor in International Settings
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief
International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions and the Convention on the Rights of the Child define child labor as including employment of children below the minimum age as established in national legislation (excluding permissible light work) and as the worst forms of child labor (ILO, 2013a; UN General Assembly, 1989). ILO Convention 182 defines the worst forms of child labor as all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery; the use, procuring, or offering of a child for prostitution, the production of pornography, or pornographic purposes; the use, procuring, or offering of a child for illicit activities; and work that, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety, or morals of children (ILO, 1999). The last category of the worst forms of child labor is often referred to as “hazardous child labor” and is the most common of the worst forms. In practice, hazardous child labor includes work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions that could result in a child being killed, injured, or made ill as a consequence of poor safety and health standards and working arrangements. Meanwhile, ILO Convention 29 defines forced labor as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which said person has not offered himself voluntarily” (ILO, 1930).
More than 168 million children are affected by child labor worldwide, with a predominance of child labor occurring in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia (ILO, 2008a,b, 2013b). ILO estimated in 2012 that 6 million children and more than 15 million adults were victims of forced labor (ILO, 2012). While strides have been made in understanding the problems of child labor and forced labor, as well as in approaches to reduce the global burden of both issues, additional research could help fill the remaining gaps in knowledge.
Furthermore, the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in September 2015, call for “promot[ing] sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth; full and productive employment; and decent work for all.” Within goal 8, target 8.7 calls for the “eradicat[ion] of forced labor, … modern slavery and human trafficking, and … the elimination of the worst forms of child labor, and by 2025, [to] end child labor in all its forms” (UN, 2015).
To these ends, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop on October 18, 2016, in Washington, DC, at the request of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Bureau of International Affairs (ILAB) Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT) to illuminate the current gaps in knowledge within the research fields of child labor and forced labor. The workshop also explored key needs and priority research questions to ensure a robust and rigorous global research platform. In addition to these main workshop objectives, Charita Castro, chief of the research and policy division within OCFT, asked the participants to consider the ways in which current experts, researchers, and practitioners might cultivate and support the next generation of researchers within the fields of child labor and forced labor. The workshop brought together a diverse group of researchers, including academics, advocates, implementers, economists, public health experts, and others to engage in a robust dialogue centered on the above objectives.1
1 A list of workshop participants can be found on the workshop’s meeting page located at: http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Global/ViolenceForum/2016-OCT-18.aspx (accessed December 21, 2016).
Within these objectives, three broad types of research goals have been identified and used by OCFT within its research programming. These research goals are described as: (1) Descriptive—Understand the scope and characteristics of populations in child labor and forced labor; (2) Relational—Uncover protective and risk factors that decrease or increase the odds of child labor or forced labor; and (3) Causal—Determine the efficacy of interventions to prevent or reduce child labor and forced labor.
In her opening remarks to the participants, Carol Pier, deputy undersecretary for International Labor Affairs at ILAB, highlighted the strides already made by ILAB in its research efforts related to both child and forced labor, including the support and funding of more than 300 projects in 90 countries, the provision of assistance to millions of vulnerable children and families, and ILAB’s commitment to exploring the efficacy of its programming efforts to ensure the success of its work. Despite these tremendous gains—including a marked reduction in the number of individuals in both child labor and forced labor since 2000—Pier highlighted the need for additional research: virtually no national estimates of forced labor exist, evidence describing how occupational health and safety exposures affect both children and youth is lacking, and nuanced data on the effectiveness of various intervention programs are unavailable.2 Pier urged workshop participants to think critically about these and other gaps to ensure continued success in both ILAB’s and DOL’s efforts.
OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP STRUCTURE
The workshop opened with a presentation from Hanni Stoklosa, a fellow at the National Academy of Medicine, highlighting the current knowledge base and general gaps in the literature. This presentation was based on the findings of a background paper3 produced in coordination with this workshop. Thereafter, panel sessions were held that focused on each of the three types of research goals: descriptive, relational, and causal. In each session, participants were asked to identify critical gaps in the knowledge base for child labor and forced labor.4 This enabled the session moderators to identify the overarching topics. For each panel session, participants were then asked to identify priority research questions by topic that could be used to fill in the identified gaps in knowledge.
WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT CHILD LABOR AND FORCED LABOR?
Stoklosa provided an overview of the current knowledge and science within the fields of child labor and forced labor. Stoklosa noted that national estimates on the scope of child labor vary because they are synthesized from multiple datasets with different purposes and different definitions; moreover, the frequency of data collection varies from country to country. Recognizing the need for standardization in data collection, the International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) developed standards for the collection and analysis of national child labor statistics that should ease disparate data collection.
Adding to the disparities in data, Stoklosa stated there is no universal method for measuring hazardous work or hazardous household chores. This lack of global standardization poses a challenge for the development of comparable estimates. Despite this, it is known that children are laboring in a broad spectrum of industries across the globe, with the highest numbers found in agriculture, followed by hunting, forestry, fishing, services, and the industrial sector. Stoklosa noted that child labor estimates are becoming more robust over time.
Stoklosa said more research is needed on what factors protect children from being forced into labor. However, she explained that the factors that put children at risk for involvement in child labor include poverty, discrimination, urbanization, lack of access to education, shocks (particularly crop failure), and incomplete social protection systems. Many of the same factors that contribute to children’s exploitation in child labor also contribute to the exploitation of children and adults in forced labor. She noted migration plays a role in both child labor and forced labor. It creates a particular vulnerability to forced labor, as it is often the case that migrant workers may be unable to exercise their rights to freedom of association or collective bargaining, or to report illegal behavior on the part of employers.
Stoklosa described the increasing evidence of the negative effects child labor has on both health and education. Child labor is associated with such health risks as adolescent mortality and infectious diseases. However, causal associations between health outcomes and child labor are not clearly established.
To reduce the causes of child labor, Stoklosa explained that many policy and programmatic interventions have been implemented—including raising awareness, improving access to quality education, and social protection programs; however, there is a dearth of evidence regarding the efficacy of these programs—except for conditional cash transfers. And despite a high degree of attention in the literature, Stoklosa noted studies of the efficacy of conditional cash transfers often disagree.
2 Except for conditional cash transfers, a type of social protection program, wherein monetary incentives are provided to families to keep their children in school, for which there is abundant data.
3 For this workshop, Stoklosa produced a background paper that explored the academic and grey literature on the descriptive, relational, and causal research types identified by OCFT across both child labor and forced labor. The background paper can be found on the workshop’s meeting page located at: http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Global/ViolenceForum/2016-OCT-18.aspx (accessed December 21, 2016).
4 Such as a lack of data on child labor among refugee populations—an identified gap in the descriptive panel session.
Stoklosa said more work is needed to develop and implement rigorous methodologies to measure forced labor, conduct forced labor surveys, and develop global forced labor estimates. Forced labor typically occurs in industries such as construction work, services, agriculture, and fishing—all of which are often underregulated and underpaid sectors of labor—as well as electronics, mining, and commercial sex.
Stoklosa stated that the risk factors for forced labor appear to be similar in nature to that of child labor, though more research is needed. Despite the efforts of various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other partners in conducting a broad range of interventions across sectors, very little is known about what works to mitigate the risk of forced labor, and programmatic and policy impact studies are virtually nonexistent.
Stoklosa repeated that the scope of child labor and forced labor are still poorly understood, as national-level estimates are not universally robust. She highlighted the general need for more research in the fields of child labor and forced labor, as well as a stronger focus on multidisciplinary research and activity across sectors. She noted there is a need for greater exploration of risk and protective factors across child labor and forced labor. Stoklosa said research for child labor and forced labor will require more refined sampling, more appropriate control groups, and more accurate identification and monitoring of hazards and outcomes over longer periods of time. A shared data platform, similar to the World Health Organization (WHO) Health Metrics System, could help produce more interdisciplinary work with better access to data.
In responding to Stoklosa’s presentation, some workshop participants supported the notion of a shared data platform. Michaëlle de Cock, a statistician with ILO, said her institution has difficulty sharing datasets with certain countries and groups because of various regulations and contractual obligations. Others pointed to this lack of data access as a barrier to performing research in these fields; without remediation, it could inhibit future research as well.
Courtland Robinson, assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, mentioned an additional barrier to research in this field. He said that in-country threats of litigation and intimidation can occur in nations where child labor or forced labor is likely to be high and the governments or other groups have a vested interest in preventing research and intervention work in this field. This concern was echoed by a handful of other participants as being a critical barrier to research.
THE DESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF CHILD LABOR AND FORCED LABOR
The first session focused on OCFT’s descriptive research goal of understanding the scope and characteristics of populations in child labor and forced labor. Participants were asked to identify a range of critical gaps in the knowledge base, which were then grouped into the following six topics by the session moderators: (1) Hazards and health: Examples of gaps identified by individual participants included occupational health and safety standards; psychosocial impacts of child labor; long- and short-term health effects of child labor or forced labor; and the differentiation between environmental and occupational exposures and their resultant health effects; (2) Definitional issues: Examples of gaps identified by individual participants included defining hazards and hazardous child labor, defining household chores within the context of child labor, and defining forced child labor among others; (3) Subpopulations, prevalence, and estimates: Examples of gaps identified by individual participants included accessing and sampling vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups such as Syrian refugees, child soldiers, and individuals in caste-based societies, and sector-based and supply chain prevalence estimates in both forced labor and child labor among others; (4) Methodologies and tools: Examples of gaps identified by individual participants included sampling and survey methodologies for hard-to-reach populations; sampling and survey design in general, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches; best tools for use in research; capturing rare events; and the effects of survey design on statistics; (5) The general nature and context of forced labor: Examples of gaps identified by individual participants mostly centered around definitional and prevalence estimates described in forced labor; and (6) Supply chains: Gaps identified by individual participants included the ways in which pricing structures affect child labor and forced labor, measurements in supply chains, and the economic forces that push businesses to use forced labor and child labor.
After a brief discussion of these six topics, participants were asked to identify research questions that could inform or fill in the purported gaps within each topic. These questions were then reviewed and staff from DOL reported back to the participants.
Castro reported back on the first three topics of hazards and health; subpopulations, prevalence, and estimates; and definitional issues. These topics, she said, cover the following critical research questions: what are the effects of hazards and exposures on children, including both long- and short-term effects and the effects specific to subsectors of labor such as bricklaying, mining, leather making, and garbage picking; how can we distinguish between what is hazardous and what is not hazardous, especially in the 15–17 age group; what work is acceptable for children under 15; how can we better inform governments that create legislation in this area so their regulations are based on evidence and science; and how can we better study vulnerable populations such as refugees, migrants, and caste-based populations?
In a discussion of these issues and questions, some participants raised definitional issues, and in particular, the need for an evidence-based approach in defining the nature and extent of hazardous work. David Parker, an occupational and environmental medicine physician with HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, highlighted the importance of physiological development when identifying hazards and risks among age groups. He described the feedback loop that can occur between community-based hazards, such as poor sanitation and lack of nutrition, and workplace hazards. Building on this point, Halshka Graczyk of the University of Lausanne said that individuals often live in the places they work, increasing the risk of chronic exposures to hazards, resulting in deleterious health outcomes. She noted that these questions also fall under the topic of tools and measurements, revealing how these questions and gaps often cross into other areas, including environmental health, children’s developmental health, infectious disease control, and community health. Graczyk emphasized the need to measure and address child labor more holistically, as child labor is not a stand-alone problem.
Carolyn Huang of OCFT reported to the group regarding questions that focused on the general nature and context of forced labor: what is the threshold that delineates forced labor from exploitative labor, including severity, levels of abuse, degree of consent, and vulnerability; is there employer demand for forced labor or cheap and exploitative labor; and how can the indicators of forced labor that are nonphysical and less observable be identified and measured?
In group discussions and responses, Erin Klett of Verite highlighted how difficult it is to identify the point at which exploitative labor becomes forced labor, while also noting the significance of a lack of alternative livelihoods in this context. In a similar definitional vein, de Cock pointed to the difficulty in defining the forced labor of children, which is a worst form of child labor. Pressing further into the issue of demand regarding cheap or forced labor, Klett explained that there is rarely a demand for out-and-out forced labor; however, the demand for cheap labor often morphs into forced labor, with de Cock raising the key issue of coercion in this context.
Rachel Rigsby of OCFT reported back on the topic of supply chains, presenting such key questions as: how do we provide better, more actionable, evidence-based information to industries and companies that want to eliminate child labor and forced labor in their supply chains; how can we better perform research around incentives, meaning how can we better motivate industries to action in their supply chain? Some participants noted that this could include better tracing of products made using child labor or forced labor so this information can be made public with the hope of developing pressure for change. Neha Mishra of the Solidarity Center also noted that economic pressures such as trade agreements are another method of incentivization.
In response to these questions, Castro explained that it is often the case at OCFT that industries and companies will come to them with requests for information on how to map their supply chain, which is not information that is readily available within OCFT. Rigsby said that companies will often pay an external company or agency (not OCFT) for such a service. Klett and Mishra echoed this response; however, both noted that the costs are not unmanageable and that shorter supply chains are inherently easier to map and manage.
Klett then raised two research questions that were not generated during the first part of the session: how can we better understand the facilitating market that pushes rational businesses to use forced labor or child labor? And what interventions might be undertaken to alter the markets and their subsequent influence on businesses?
Celeste Lemrow and Kevin Hong, both of OCFT, provided an overview of the methodologies and tools topical area, which subsumed issues of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research, as well as sampling. Research questions focused on identifying better instruments and sampling tools and knowing when you have found the “right” tool for research purposes, as well as how to assess reliability and accuracy. Steve Thompson of Simon Fraser University raised the need for simulations, including exploratory or participatory research to better understand the populations being sampled, which could also help inform relational and causal research questions and goals. Lemrow went on to highlight research questions that focused on measuring subpopulations while also enhancing broader representative estimates, noting a need for a balance between the two.
In this same vein, Hong raised the following question: how can we identify and develop tools for sampling representative populations while also accommodating rare populations? In closing, Lemrow raised the research question: how can we measure the nonwork aspects of children’s lives in order to gain a more holistic view of child labor in context?
In response to the tools report back, Robinson raised the need for consensus building to develop scientific agreement on what works. Andrew Dillon of Michigan State University echoed this suggestion by pointing out the need for validation studies. Castro explained that from OCFT’s perspective, when working with countries it is less important to have consensus than it is to have buy-in from the country, with the main questions being: what is the question we need to answer and what is the best tool to do so? In the event that we lack a tool, how do we develop and test one that will work? Finally, some speakers suggested a need for more clearly defined anthropological, medical, and economic studies (among other disciplines) with specific questions to collect the necessary data to conduct empirical work in the fields of child labor and forced labor, which could add greater understanding and context to both fields of research.
THE RELATIONAL NATURE OF CHILD LABOR AND FORCED LABOR
The group discussion on the relational nature of child labor and forced labor focused on uncovering both risk and protective factors that decrease or increase the odds of child labor or forced labor. The group examined four topics: methodology, migration, labor policy and social protection, and business organization and structure.
Robinson pointed out the critical need for any methodology to be inclusive of nonworking children, for instance, when developing risk and protective factors as a comparison group. Eric Edmonds of Dartmouth College echoed this concern, stating that he has yet to see a study that purports to identify risk factors in a hazardous working context that is not based on a contaminated sample, meaning that studies in this context only assess the indicators found among groups of children that are already in child labor. There is a need, he explained, for improved inference, by which research studies seek to also assess indicators for children not in child labor in order to better understand the risk factors for entering child labor more comprehensively. Dillon raised a concern regarding the transferability of risk and protective factors across cultures and contexts, pointing to a need for, again, more research.
Susan Gunn, a consultant to ILO, suggested assessing risk factors by age and by gender, stating there is a need to develop research to explore these differences. Other research questions raised within the area of methodology included questions on the identification of community-based risk and protective factors (Graczyk) and whether there were key indicators of risk across sectors and industries (Klett).
The group then shifted its discussion to migrant populations and the risks associated with their participation in child labor and forced labor. This issue, some participants commented, is often related to household decision making as it is often the case that parents chose to migrate because of economic pressures at the household level.
The issue of migration was also seen by Kenneth Swinnerton of DOL as being closely related to a notion of “incomplete information” among migrants and laborers and how access to information influences risk and protective factors. For instance, an individual might choose to migrate to a location without a complete understanding of the true nature and safety of life and work in this new location, or parents might send a child to work without understanding the risks and hazards involved.
The third topic put forward considered the influence of labor policy and social protection on risk and protective factors. Klett suggested that it would be of interest to assess what aspects of immigration policy (such as freedom of association, visa portability, availability of decent work, and minimum wage or living wage) have the greatest protective effect against child labor or forced labor and which aspects of immigration policy create the most vulnerability. Laura Bermudez of Columbia University asked about the influence of micro-insurance on child labor and forced labor.
In discussing business structures and organizations and their influence on the risk and protective factors associated with child labor and forced labor, Bermudez asked how might the modernization of equipment affect or influence risk and protective factors related to child labor and forced labor. Mishra raised the question: what business structures, such as direct recruitment, long-term relationships with suppliers, and a shorter supply chain, might reduce or increase the risk of child labor and forced labor?
Additional research questions identified within this session included the influence of the local economy on child labor and forced labor (Tina Faulkner, OCFT); how adult working conditions or perceptions on work affect the risk of child labor (Huang); and the effects of access to quality education on both risk factors and protective factors related to child labor and forced labor.
THE CAUSAL NATURE OF CHILD LABOR AND FORCED LABOR
The final session focused on the causal nature of both child labor and forced labor, where participants discussed the efficacy of interventions to prevent or reduce child labor and forced labor. Moderators Dillon and Lemrow asked participants to consider the process of developing gaps, themes, and research questions in a different manner than the previous sessions. They asked participants to focus on causal pathways that work to change some behavior or factor to produce a desired outcome—in this case, a reduction in child labor or forced labor. In other words, instead of identifying key gaps in the research, Dillon and Lemrow asked participants to identify pathways in need of greater research. As an example, Dillon raised the issue of access to quality education, which is believed to reduce child labor as quality education presents an alternative to labor, thus making quality education the pathway. Dillon and Lemrow then explained that participants would be asked to provide a research question and/or an idea for an intervention or a program that could be used within that pathway.
Based on discussion, Dillon and Lemrow noted five overarching pathways for which research questions and interventions were suggested: (1) Migration, which moderators noted could include migration policy and documentation; (2) Social protection, such as conditional cash transfers and shelter services; (3) Savings and finance, such as the effect of individual savings accounts and living wages; (4) Health, which moderators described as including occupational safety and health trainings; access to water, sanitation, and hygiene; and access to quality care for mental health issues; and (5) Governance, such as the inclusion of child workers in unions, enforcement of laws, and the effect of local governments.
Participants were then asked to develop specific research questions and possible programmatic interventions that could be used to answer those questions within a pathway of their choosing. Many questions and programmatic opportunities were raised by participants in response to the migration pathway. Robinson wondered whether the required documents that migrants and immigrants must carry are effective or protective in reducing or preventing child labor and forced labor.
Huang raised another point within the migration pathway—that of overseas and pre-departure trainings for migrants.5 In response, Robinson supported continued training and the need for follow-up evaluations to assess information retention. As an additional point of consideration, Castro explained that in the Philippines, data show that trainings are more robust in city centers, perhaps resulting in a situation whereby those migrating from more rural areas are more vulnerable. Edmonds explained that another vulnerability within the migrant context could be related to the level of community support at the destination.
Vicki Walker of Winrock International suggested an option for the savings and finance pathway by improving income and creating more appropriate forms of employment for youth in rural and hard-to-reach areas. She also noted the need for better management of remittances, a thought that was echoed by Mishra. Some participants proposed a need for research into micro-savings as well as micro-credit, as it is still unknown if increased income causes an increase or decrease in child labor. In response to this concern, Edmonds highlighted the need to prioritize research questions regarding programming or interventions that could have potentially negative effects on those in child labor and forced labor.
Research questions and intervention approaches within the health pathway included the idea of integrating approaches for the study and/or reduction of child labor and forced labor into existing research platforms. For instance, Graczyk suggested that questions regarding hazardous exposures, resulting health effects, and the general health and well-being of children be integrated into existing national child labor surveys, while Faulkner suggested that studies focused on mental health and its relationship to child labor and forced labor could be integrated into existing mental health platforms and interventions. Several participants noted this as a potentially low-cost approach with opportunities for high impact. However, both Castro and Robinson raised a concern about identifying the “right” questions to include and the best way to secure integration.
Graczyk raised another health approach focused on the relationship between highly preventable illnesses (e.g., tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria) and work. These illnesses point to environmental hazards that suggest a need to explore literature and research outside of the traditional child labor and forced labor arenas—including environmental health literature that could illuminate issues about exposures to toxins and health hazards within communities and workplaces.
Discussions of health approaches included hazards related to tools versus hazards related to tasks. Graczyk argued for an assessment of hazards by tasks in the context of child labor, whereas Parker suggested the need for inclusion of tools in that assessment, as tools and tasks are related and there are particular tools that are too hazardous for children to operate without some sort of restriction. Castro raised the need to better understand hazards by age group, such as what is hazardous for children under the age of 15 and why, and what is considered hazardous for children ages 15–17 and why.
Huang addressed the pathway of social protection by citing the need for a better calibration of funding or dosage in conditional cash transfers as it is unclear what amount of financial support will offset child labor. Additionally, Castro cited a need to better understand the ways in which organizations like DOL can assist national governments in the expansion of such programming when it is found to be effective.
Deborah Martierrez of DOL addressed the governance pathway by suggesting a need to better understand the positive and negative effects of strict regulations, codes of conduct, and bylaws on child labor and forced labor. Gunn also asked whether a community-based approach to risk assessment and enforcement is more effective than a centralized, national effort. Lastly, Swinnerton highlighted the need for a better understanding of responsibility within and across the supply chain.
FINAL THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS
In a final discussion and reflection of the day’s activities, workshop chair Edmonds asked participants to share their thoughts about what might have been missing from the workshop’s content or what needs to be raised again as a priority issue within the research fields of child labor and forced labor.
Both de Cock and Edmonds felt there was a lack of discussion on the economics of forced labor, including both the demand side and profits of this form of labor, throughout the workshop. Dillon noted the lack of focus on agriculture, which he suggested could help illuminate micro- and macro-levels of development. Graczyk highlighted the need for systematic and quantitative impact evaluations of interventions specific to child labor. Robinson highlighted the need for more sentinel surveillance activities and discovering how the fields of child labor and forced labor research might better access big data and technological platforms as not only data collection tools but as opportunities to provide interventions (e.g., sending SMS messages to migrants to ensure they are not being exploited).
5 The training of migrants prior to departure and once they are at their destination about their rights and opportunities for accessing justice if their rights are threatened.
de Cock and others renewed the call from the morning’s discussions related to the sharing of data across sectors and platforms to produce more robust research and to better incentivize future researchers to join the field. Some participants also pointed out that research is currently too siloed, and this lack of a shared-data platform or forum to access the work of colleagues in other disciplines makes it difficult to progress in related research and scientific fields.
In addition to data sharing across fields and sectors, Parker pushed for more collaboration across research disciplines and sectors, citing that schools of public health could be tremendous partners, as could government agencies and NGOs working within these sectors. On a related note, Klett suggested that business schools could be strong partners in research related to supply chains, business and organizational structures, and understanding market forces that drive employers to use child labor and forced labor.
Some participants emphasized the importance of including the perspective of working children within the research field of child labor in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and suggested this component be added to research in the field of child labor.
Lastly, Castro raised the importance of cultivating and supporting the next generation of researchers, in which she echoed Parker’s call for public health inclusion. Edmonds cited the importance of publication in this context and the need to streamline funding opportunities by circumventing the laborious and expensive grant application process required by DOL to make it easier for young researchers to become engaged in the field, thus ensuring robust research outcomes and continued progress for years to come.♦♦♦
ILO (International Labour Organization). 1930. Forced Labor Convention, C29. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb621f2a.html (accessed November 28, 2016).
ILO. 1999. Convention Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor, C182. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc87/com-chic.htm (accessed November 28, 2016).
ILO. 2008a. 18th ICLS report on child labor statistics. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
ILO. 2008b. Resolution II: Resolution concerning statistics of child labour. 18th ICLS. Geneva, Switzerland. ILO.
2012. ILO global estimate of forced labor 2012: Results and methodology. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
ILO. 2013a. 19th ICLS, resolution II. http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/meetings-and-events/international-conference-of-labour-statisticians/19/lang--en/index.htm (accessed November 28, 2016).
ILO. 2013b. Marking progress against child labour: Global estimates and trends 2000–2012. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
UN (United Nations). 2015. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ sustainable-development-goals (accessed November 28, 2016).
UN General Assembly. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Treaty series, Vol. 1577, p. 3. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html (accessed November 28, 2016).
DISCLAIMER: This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Louise Flavahan as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s planning committees are solely responsible for organizing the workshop, identifying topics, and choosing speakers. The responsibility for the published Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief rests with the institution.
REVIEWERS: To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Andrew Dillon, Michigan State University; Eric Edmonds, Dartmouth College; Halshka Graczyk, University of Lausanne; Deborah Levison, University of Minnesota; David Parker, HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research; and Furio Rosati, Understanding Children’s Work Programme. Lauren Shern, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review coordinator.
SPONSORS: This workshop was supported by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs.
For additional information regarding the meeting, visit http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Global/ViolenceForum/2016-OCT-18.aspx.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Exploring the development of a U.S. Department of Labor research strategy on child labor and forced labor in international settings: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24639.
Health and Medicine Division
Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.