Practitioners’ Perspectives of Family Involved Sex Trafficking of Minors: Implications for Practice
Andrea Nichols, Melissa Oberstaedt, Sarah Slutsker, and Kourtney Gilbert, 2023, Journal of Family Violence
Abstract
Purpose
The current study examines family-involved sex trafficking of minors and the related practices of the professionals who work with them.
Methods
Data are drawn from a larger study involving inductive analysis of 35 in-depth interviews with social service and justice system professionals who worked with minor sex trafficking survivors in two study sites in a metropolitan Midwestern region. Data analysis of the professionally transcribed interviews involved a multi-phase co-coding process conducted by members of the research team to identify key themes and subthemes. Key themes explored in the current study are types of family involvement in sex trafficking of minors and practices practitioners reported as beneficial or challenging in working with survivors and their family members.
Results
Results showed family involved sex trafficking manifested as direct trafficking of child family members, as well as complicity with trafficking for financial benefit, allowing access of sex work clients to children, and modeling commercial sex. Practice dynamics centered on reunification and safety, and mandated reporting.
Conclusions
The current study highlights promising practices for working with minors whose family members were involved in their sex trafficking situation. Promising micro level practices include disclosure of mandated reporter status, providing survivor-centered practice, training for foster families, emphasizing healthy relationships, engaging in motivational interviewing, safety planning, family and individual therapy, and resource referrals for family members. Macro level practice emphasizing structural changes, such as access to safe and affordable housing, SUD related care, and poverty alleviation programs to address vulnerabilities related to complicity are also recommended.
The extant research literature examining family-involved sex trafficking is limited (Reid et al., 2015; Edwards et al., 2022; Sprang & Cole, 2019; White et al., 2023). Important contributions to this area of research include case studies, interviews with survivors, and data from healthcare, child welfare and justice system organizations (Raphael, 2020; Reid et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2019; White et al., 2023; Edwards et al., 2022). The research largely focuses on pathways into commercial sex, descriptive statistics and clinical profiles of survivors, and family background and risk factors that are conducive to sex trafficking vulnerability and victimization (Sprang & Cole, 2018; Raphael, 2020; Reid et al., 2015; Reed et al., 2019; White et al., 2023). This small but growing body of literature finds sex trafficking involving family members composes a substantial proportion of sex trafficking experiences, yet remains under-researched. Furthermore, examination of the ways anti-trafficking professionals engage in practices with minors who are survivors of family involved trafficking is extremely limited. Prior research examining practices largely focuses on identification and screening, and training of professionals, with the aim of appropriate interventions and service referral (White et al., 2023; Edwards et al., 2022). To contribute to this small body of work, the current study draws from interviews with 35 anti-trafficking professionals working in social services and the juvenile justice system to examine family-involved sex trafficking of minors and the practices of the professionals who work with them.
Background
Definition
As indicated in the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act, sex trafficking includes any commercial sex act involving an adult through the use of force, fraud or coercion, or any commercial sex act involving a minor under any circumstances. Common forms of sex trafficking of minors (STM) that are well documented in the extant research literature include survival sex (i.e., trading sex to meet basic needs such as food and/or shelter) and commercial sex facilitated by a third party the minor views as a boyfriend or intimate partner (Gerassi & Esbensen, 2020; Murphy, 2017; Nichols et al., 2022b; Reed et al., 2019). However, familial trafficking (i.e., trafficking by a family member) is another form of STM. Family involved STM can include producing, selling, distributing or trading pornography (Reid et al., 2015; Sprang & Cole, 2018), underage strip club involvement (Sprang & Cole, 2018), and prostitution (Reid, 2015; Sprang & Cole, 2018). The lexicon of the studies that explore trafficking perpetrated or facilitated by family members includes family facilitated trafficking (Reid et al., 2015), familial trafficking (Sprang & Cole, 2018) or family-controlled trafficking (Edwards et al., 2022). In the present study, based on our research findings, we use the term family involved trafficking as a broader term, inclusive of complicity and modeling commercial sex as well as direct familial trafficking.
Prevalence
Despite the dominant media narrative that STM is perpetrated by strangers, research suggests most survivors are trafficked by people they know well (Polaris, 2021; Twis et al. 2022; Cole & Anderson, 2013; Cole et al., 2014; Reid et al., 2015; Edwards et al., 2022; White et al., 2023). Trafficking by family members in particular has long been overlooked and under-researched, making it difficult to quantify and establish its prevalence. Research largely shows the proportion of sex trafficking experiences in which family members are implicated, rather than general societal prevalence. In a study of 323 service providers working with at-risk youth in Kentucky, 61.9% reported that one of their three most recent cases involved a trafficker from within the survivor’s family (Cole & Anderson, 2013). In the same study, parents were mentioned by 46.3% of providers, while other relatives were mentioned by 19.4%. Reid and colleagues (2015) found in examining case files of 92 minor girls experiencing sex trafficking, in cases where the trafficker was known, 31% involved a relative. Family involved trafficking has also been documented in helpline statistics; in 2017, 24% of traffickers reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline were members of the survivor’s family (Polaris, 2017). More recently, in their 2021 report examining national hotline data, Polaris indicated a family member or caregiver was the most likely recruiter of those experiencing sex trafficking (Polaris, 2021). A statewide study conducted in Missouri found that among 402 instances of sex trafficking, 18% of survivors experienced family involved sex trafficking (Nichols et al., 2022). In Kentucky, Edwards and colleagues (2022) found of 698 alleged child trafficking cases uncovered between 2013 and 2017 involving the child welfare system, nearly 60% were trafficked by a family member. In the state where the study was conducted, all reports of suspected human trafficking involving juveniles must be reported to child welfare, regardless of the relationship between the alleged perpetrator and victim, which is not a requirement in all states. Koegler et al. (2022) found among 59 survivors, 12 were trafficked by family members. In various studies, the number of cases involving familial traffickers varies widely (Raphael, 2020). This likely depends on the sampling techniques, such as organizational context and ages of inclusion, as well as specific difficulties related to identification and disclosure (White et al., 2023). Because the unique dynamics of family involved trafficking make it difficult for survivors to report their trafficking situation and seek help, (if they recognize their experiences as trafficking at all), family involved trafficking is likely underreported.
Family Dynamics
The gap in the research literature examining family involved STM reflects the complexity of family dynamics in such situations. This includes lack of identification of family involved trafficking in various systems, as well as lack of self-identification as a survivor/ victim of STM. Lack of self-identification and disclosure is often rooted in a trajectory of trauma involving child physical/sexual abuse and neglect, as well as dynamics of intimidation and control, loyalty to family members, and the psychological need for affection and dependency (Edwards et al., 2022; Reid et al., 2015; White et al., 2023). While some accounts align with public perceptions of family involved trafficking as outwardly violent and coercive, many cases include more subtle forms of control, such as leveraging love and affection (Raphael, 2020). “The idea of disappointing or angering a parent or sibling may be enough to compel a child into doing something they do not understand or would not want to otherwise do (White et al., 2023, p.9).” This may complicate survivors’ understanding of their experiences, especially given the early age family involved trafficking begins. In a case review of four social service agencies in Florida, children experienced family involved trafficking as young as four years old, while the youngest age in which children were trafficked by non-family members was eleven (Reid et al., 2015). Some survivors who first experience trafficking at a young age may not realize anything is out of the ordinary—in fact, some who have experienced neglect from caretakers may perceive the extra attention as positive (Raphael, 2020). Whether trafficking involves attention and praise and/or coercion and violence, many minors lack the support and resources to resist it, especially when doing so could limit their access to food, shelter, and their other physical and emotional needs.
Early research indicated child sexual abuse can escalate over time, and develop into a sex trafficking situation (Albanese, 2007). More recent research reflecting case studies also shows instances of child sexual and physical abuses escalating into sex trafficking situations (White et al., 2023). Reid and colleagues (2015) indicated higher incidence of witnessing domestic violence between caregivers, child sexual abuse, and child physical abuse, as well as neglect and/or abandonment among survivors who were trafficked by a family member compared to survivors trafficked by non-relatives. Reid and associates also noted several cases involved more than one family member implicated in sex trafficking of minors. Another study showed minors experiencing sex trafficking by a family member have heightened risk factors and adversities, that “create a household dynamic of coercion and chronic stress” (Sprang & Cole, 2018, p.187).” Ostensibly, family dynamics such as background of abuse, neglect, exposure to intimate partner violence in the home are associated with risk of family involved trafficking.
Indirect Family Involved Trafficking
In some cases of family involved sex trafficking, family members are not directly involved in trafficking. Rather, they enable exploitation by “looking the other way,” allowing their own commercial sex clients to access a child, or modeling commercial sex. In a study of adults in the sex industry, 35% of those who began sex work earlier than age 18 also had family members in the trade (Fedina et al., 2016). Oselin (2014) found that of those who started trading sex in childhood, many came from families involved in the sex trade, which normalized it. In cases where family members have also experienced trafficking or sexual harm, they may be reluctant to acknowledge the need for intervention on the child’s behalf or are unaware that such experiences constitute trafficking. Family members may also be hesitant to investigate or interfere with suspected trafficking when it makes family expenses more affordable. The lack of direct familial involvement in such trafficking cases makes them especially difficult to identify and address, perhaps explaining in part why family involved trafficking is under prosecuted (Edwards et al., 2022).
Practices with Families
The complex dynamics of family involved trafficking present unique challenges for those working with sex trafficking survivors. Practitioners may need to navigate family members’ suspicion of or resistance to therapeutic interventions, or they may be tasked in part with deciding whether a survivor ought to maintain contact with family at all. In many cases, there’s no perfect solution—a social support system, including family, is demonstrably beneficial to a survivor’s recovery, but re-exposure to a perpetrator or a facilitator of abuse can compound trauma or put the child at risk of continued abuse.
Recent scholarship has suggested practitioners may need to transition from a purely punitive approach towards families to one which acknowledges their socioeconomic support needs. Because many familial traffickers are motivated by financial strain (Reid et al., 2015), programs which provide for basic needs like housing, food, and clothing may disincentivize familial motivation to traffic their children or accept money without questioning where it came from. Likewise, substance use disorders and associated debt are well-documented motivations behind family involved trafficking (Cole & Sprang, 2015; Heil & Nichols, 2019). A holistic approach, including substance disorder treatment and economic assistance for the whole family, may help curb family involved trafficking if not prevent it in the first place.
Practice based research also focuses on the mental healthcare needs of survivors of family involved trafficking, as well as identification and screening practices (Edwards et al., 2022; White et al., 2023). Children trafficked by family members are at increased risk of experiencing PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, indicating the need for therapeutic interventions (Sprang & Cole, 2018). Cole and Sprang (2020) delineated that family involved trafficking in trainings is neglected, demonstrating the necessity of inclusion of family involved trafficking in professional trainings. White and colleagues (2023) recommended screening for family involved trafficking, noting that “failing to ask about familial relationships may lead to false negatives in trafficking screenings (p. 10).” Many screening tools refer to employment, jobs, and bosses, which may not resonate with the experiences of survivors of family involved trafficking. White and colleagues (2023) recommend using a screening tool, such as the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT), to identify trafficking, but also recommend asking questions about family relationships to better uncover family involved trafficking.
While the extant research explores the need for clinical interventions and inclusion of family involved trafficking in screenings and trainings, research specifically examining the perspectives and experiences of practitioners who work with minors who are survivors of family involved sex trafficking is not present in the current academic discourse. The current study is unique, in that it draws from practitioners’ perspectives and experiences working with minors who are survivors of family-involved sex trafficking, and the practices they find beneficial or challenging. Drawing from interviews with 35 social service providers and justice system professionals, the present study focuses on the following research questions:
1) To what extent are family members involved in cases of sex trafficking of minors in practitioners’ experiences?
2) What practices do practitioners find most effective in working with minors experiencing family involved sex trafficking?
Methods
The present study draws from a larger study focusing on collaborative responses to address sex trafficking of minors involved with the juvenile justice system. The current study specifically examines family involved sex trafficking, which was uncovered as a theme within the larger study. Another subtheme examined in the present study reflects the practices respondents described using in their work with survivors who experienced family involved trafficking. Data are derived from transcribed interviews with 35 participants who worked directly with minors experiencing sex trafficking in social services and the justice system. Of the 35 participants involved in the larger study, 30 reported directly working with families of the survivors they worked with, some of whom were involved in the minors’ trafficking situation and some who were not. Of these, 12 participants specifically discussed family involved sex trafficking, and these interviews form the basis for the present study.
Sample
Study participants included therapists, program directors, case managers, investigators, shelter staff, truancy officers, and deputy juvenile officers (DJOs). Some participants held multiple positions (e.g., program director and therapist, director and case manager). Participants worked in drop-in centers, shelter for minors/ youth, children’s services, police departments, sex trafficking specific residential and outpatient services, and the juvenile courts. For more details about the sample, including demographics, job titles, and organizational context please see Nichols et al., 2022a.
Participants were recruited through snowball sampling techniques, as well as purposive sampling. The first author has longstanding relationships with community members through more than a decade of local coalition activities and community based participatory research collaborations. These relationships allowed for snowball sampling through contact with and recruitment of study participants coming from these initial contacts in social services, law enforcement, and the juvenile courts. Participants were asked for additional referrals following each interview. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants in areas with less representation, including service providers working in children’s residential services, as well as case managers working in minor/youth shelters. Referrals and email introductions to recruit participants from underrepresented organizational contexts came from the initial contacts and interviewees, who were asked if they knew people in specific areas to recommend for research participation, resulting in an expanded sample inclusive of more social service positions and organizational contexts.
Data Collection
In depth interviews took place in a setting of each participant’s choosing, including their own private offices (n = 31), the first author’s private office (n = 3), or a coffee shop (n = 1). Participants were provided with a consent form at the time of the interview that included benefits and risks of the project and indicated confidentiality would be preserved through de-identification of audio recordings and transcripts. Pseudonyms are used throughout the present study for all people and organizations. IRB was obtained for this study. All participants but one consented to audio recording, and field notes were taken instead for the participant who declined recording. The audio recorded interviews were professionally transcribed and rechecked by the first author. Interviews typically lasted between 30 and 45 min. An interview guide was used, with allowance for flexibility to explore additional themes as they arose in the interviews. The interview guide was structured to avoid confirmatory bias, as questions centered on benefits and challenges of various collaborations in responding to juvenile justice involved sex trafficked minors. For the purposes of the present study, the focus is on the themes and subthemes derived from the following interview questions: (1) What environmental factors impact your work with minors experiencing sex trafficking? (Prompt: Family. What makes families of sex trafficked minors beneficial or challenging to work with?) (2) What practices do you find more or less effective working with minors experiencing sex trafficking? A subtheme from the former interview question involved family members who were implicated in the minor’s trafficking situation. A subtheme from the latter interview question included practices related to family involved trafficking.
Researcher Reflexivity
The first author conducted all of the interviews, and has thirteen years of experience as a qualitative interviewer; largely interviewing practitioners in areas of interpersonal violence such as intimate partner violence and sex trafficking. She also was anti-trafficking initiative coordinator for The Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis from 2015 to 2018, and has been involved in a community anti-trafficking coalition for nearly 15 years, regularly working with survivor-leaders and other community anti-trafficking professionals. These experiences provided learning opportunities enhancing sensitivity and commitment to a survivor-centered lens and cultural humility. These community roles also coincide with the first author’s community action research aims, which allowed for connection and trust building with participants. The first author was able to parallel her experiences in community based anti-trafficking work with that of participants, which allowed her to integrate her own experiences with the data collection process (Middleton et al. 2022). Safeguards to reduce researcher subjectivity in the interview process included use of pre and post interview reflective field notes.
Data Analysis
Data analysis involved inductive open and selective coding by hand of the transcribed interviews. Selective coding involved coding for key themes based upon the research design (e.g., benefits and challenges of working with various collaborative partners). Open coding allowed for further depth in coding the transcripts for themes outside of those intended to be uncovered in the research design. A coding tree was developed following coding of the first few transcripts, and subsequent coding was largely based on the coding tree, with some revision of the coding tree as new themes emerged. The first set of transcripts focused on those working in law enforcement, including investigators, DJOs, and truancy officers. These transcripts were independently coded by two graduate students and the first author. The graduate students had training in qualitative coding and research methodology, and the first author had years of experience as a qualitative researcher. The second set of transcripts focused on those working in social services, including case managers, therapists, program directors, and residential/shelter staff. The second set of transcripts were independently coded in pairings of two experienced coders (the first author and a trained qualitative researcher), and two mentees, who received hands on instruction and training. Following independent coding, the research team met to discuss the coded transcripts, compare codes, and discuss any discrepancies. Discrepancies related to the data used for the present article were nil, as content was coded as practitioners’ perceptions of benefits and challenges of working with family members. Coding was an objective process, which involved determining beneficial or challenging practices with families. The structure of coding teams also worked to address any bias regarding what was viewed as a benefit or a challenge; the independently coded data was discussed at team meetings and no discrepancies were found. Merged narrative accounts of the theme “benefits and challenges of working with families” were created. Family involved trafficking was uncovered as a subtheme, along with practices working with minors experiencing family involved trafficking, which compose the focus of the present study. Further taxonomic analysis uncovered “types” of family involved sex trafficking, discussed in the results.
Results
Family Involvement in Trafficking
The research findings revealed several different “types” of family involved sex trafficking. These included direct trafficking of a child by a family member, complicity with the trafficking situation, allowing access of sex work clients to a child, and modeling commercial sex, as delineated in the following sections.
Direct Family Involved Trafficking
Janet, a social service provider, described a typical case of direct family involved trafficking with parental substance use as a catalyst,
It would be, really for these small towns, some of these kids get used a lot. Get used for drugs, it really is. And again, they [family members] may not have custody of them, or they don’t see them anymore, or those rights have been terminated because of it. But there is a pretty good population of the kids that we have that have definitely …have that background.
An investigator, Kevin, described a mother and sister, who trafficked their own children as well as children of relatives in their homes,
Actually, I have one [a case] that’s an actual active now where I have a mom and her sister who are involved. They’ve pretty much trafficked any kid that’s come through the house. That should be coming up for prosecution here in the next week or so. That’s even more stressful. That takes even more time to investigate. It actually took me almost a full year to pull this case together, because it was so many people, so many entities and then family members hide. They hide and they won’t be truthful when it comes to telling on other family members. You have to be able to determine which family members the information is truthful, which family members’ information is false.
He indicated that family involved trafficking is particularly challenging, as family members do not want to get each other in trouble with the law, even when child sex trafficking is involved.
Family Complicity in Sex Trafficking of Minors
In other instances, family members were complicit in the sex trafficking of minors. They were not directly involved in trafficking their children, but they allowed trafficking to continue in order to benefit from it economically. Taryn, an investigator, stated that parents may look the other way if they are benefiting from their child’s commercial sex involvement,
We also see a lot of deniability. So families that kind of know what’s going on, but they may benefit from it, so. When they benefit from the proceeds, it’s a lot harder for them to want to help and change that.
Similarly, Ruby, a DJO, noted that at times, parents were complicit in their child’s trafficking situation because they benefitted monetarily from it,
Even when you have healed that girl, that agency can’t hold her forever. You’re putting her back to that mom that used to be excited that she could get a few dollars from what her daughter was doing. You’ve taken that away and that mom is resentful to that girl who now is healthy, and she is not herself.
As a challenge to her practice with minors, Ruby illustrated that when minors experiencing sex trafficking were returned to the family home, progress they made in social services was at times nullified by parent’s behaviors. Ruby further indicated that the mother in this situation took work shifts at times that were “prime” for her underage daughter to earn money from commercial sex, also indicating complicity,
What the hell you’re doing, being gone? You know your daughter is tricking or running the streets and the only job that you’re telling me that you are willing or able to take is from 7:00 PM to 3:00 AM, or all the hours that she could get her ass in trouble?
Narratives revealed parents in need of economic resources may be reluctant to accept and advocate changing their child’s sex trafficking situation. In addition to DJOs and investigators, social service providers also found parents were complicit with their child’s commercial sex involvement. Janet provided a representative response,
I think that just a lot of them have their own homelessness or their own trying to get by day to day, that on top of having this child that has a behavioral issue, and then having their own, who knows, “She brought home money, that’s great, I’m not even sure I care where it came from” kind of thing. And feeling bad about it later once they figure it out or whatever the case may be. But yeah, that’s a lot. And drugs. In particular, yes, in [City], but [also] these small towns that we get kids from.
This example demonstrates how poverty and homelessness may fuel parent’s complicity or deniability with their child’s commercial sex involvement.
Allowing Sex Work Clients to Access the Child
In other instances, respondents indicated that family members would similarly look the other way, but took it a step further by knowingly allowing their own sex work clients access to their children. They did not directly traffic the minors, but the parents would be involved in commercial sex themselves, and have multiple clients constantly entering and exiting their home unsupervised, allowing for sex trafficking of their children. Cassandra, a DJO, described complicated family dynamics in a case involving a minor experiencing trafficking that she worked with. In this instance, the child’s mother was involved in the sex trade and allowed her clients access to her daughter,
Her birth mother also alluded to that she was allowing numerous men in and out of her home when the child was living with her. And when she [the survivor] was on the run from her placement of staying with her mother, where she was, the mother was trading sex for drugs and alcohol. And she alluded that she knew that some of them may have been with her daughter… And really realizing that the mother was a victim too. And she didn’t know how to separate what she was going through from what she was exposing her daughter to.
In this case, Cassandra viewed the mother as a victim of sexual exploitation and addiction, while simultaneously viewing the mother as victimizing her daughter by allowing clients to access her.
Cassandra indicated that that the judge in this case decided no reasonable effort was being made by the mother to create a safe home for the child, so reunification was not considered to be an option. Instead, the child was placed with a foster family.
Modeling Commercial Sex Involvement
In addition to direct trafficking, complicity with trafficking, or allowing access of clients to a child, at times parents modeled commercial sex involvement. David, a truancy officer, indicated that in several cases he was involved with, parents were involved in commercial sex, and this provided entrée for their children to also be involved in commercial sex. While parents were not traffickers in this type of scenario, they essentially modeled commercial sex as a means for economic resources, which their children emulated,
I think that’s key. I mean, I don’t think any kid wakes up and says, “This is what I want to do. This is something that I aspire to do.“ A lot of these kids are conditioned in their environment, and they are money-driven, because they are trying to survive. If you don’t have the positive resources, what else is left for these kids to do? I also believe that the environment dictates a lot of what they see as fun. If their mom and dad grew up in the gangs, and they were in and out of jail, they were doing this, and exploiting this, and selling this … If that’s what they grew up with, then what do you expect?
David illustrated the importance of service providers checking their own biases based on their own family experience, avoiding judgement when working with minors, and recognizing where the dynamic of the child selling sex came from,
I think, oftentimes, we as providers will go into a situation with our own biases on how we grew up. A lot of these kids don’t have that fortunate bit of waking up on Sunday morning, eating breakfast with the family, or having Sunday dinner. A lot of these kids don’t do that. Again, these kids can easily be exploited if they have limited resources, and if that’s what they see fit. They don’t see anything wrong with that.
David indicated that commercial sex is normalized for children exposed to their family members’ involvement in commercial sex. Shileah, a DJO, also reported working with minors experiencing trafficking who were exposed to commercial sex by family members,
I think one of the biggest ones [challenges] that I have is forming a bond in trust. Because so many that they had trust, those were the people that some got them involved in human trafficking…[Interviewer: “you mean the family members and people like that?”] Being exposed to it, yeah. Well, the ones that I was involved with was young girls who meet older guys, those who are in foster care or the home, but particularly it was one [there was a survivor where] the parents was not in good relationship. And I believe one of the mother kind of like had some of that kind of experience [commercial sex involvement] and was exposing her daughter to it.
This example indicates exposure to commercial sex by the mother, and also challenges to subsequent trust building, as this exposure ultimately resulted in the child becoming involved in a sex trafficking situation. Shileah had another minor she worked with who was exposed to commercial sex by the relatives she moved in with following her parents’ deaths,
The other one that I experienced is that both of her parents were deceased. They were deceased when she was young, and she stayed with various relatives. And she had to be removed from some of them because they abused her. And I think she just was grasping for mother father figures or people who stepped in or act like they were, but not really there for her. [Interviewer: “And those are the people who got her involved in commercial sex?”] I think they exposed her to it.
Importantly, Shileah indicated the minors she worked with were looking for relationships with parental figures, but who did not support them in the way they hoped. Instead, they exposed the minor to commercial sex, which then served as a pathway into a sex trafficking situation.
In sum, respondents described situations in which family members were involved in the sex trafficking experiences of their children, by modeling commercial sex involvement, through complicity with their child’s situation, allowing access to the children by their own clients, and through direct sex trafficking of their children. Respondents also indicated practices they found beneficial or challenging to their work with minors experiencing these forms of family involved trafficking.
Practices with Minors Experiencing Family Involved Trafficking
Mandated Reporting
In circumstances of family involved trafficking, respondents indicated the importance of mandated reporting, and disclosure of mandated reporting to the minors they worked with. Respondents stated that as they are mandated reporters, they called the Children’s Division hotline to report suspected child abuse or neglect. As Bruce, a truancy officer, stated, “Right, so, almost immediately, I make sure it’s not something I need to hotline. Because especially if it’s somebody in the family…I immediately make sure that I cover that base.” In such cases, where family members were facilitating or directly trafficking the children, the children were removed from the home.
Respondents also delineated the importance of disclosing to the sex trafficking survivors they worked with that they are mandated reporters, to build trust and engage in transparency. Bruce further elaborated that at the point a child was confirmed as a survivor, they were typically ready to disclose, even if that meant getting a parent or family member in trouble. Importantly, Bruce indicated disclosed information that did not involve child neglect or abuse could remain confidential,
We throw that out almost immediately within the first session. This is what we have to report. Right? In this capacity, I don’t know. I think if you told me that you had to report certain things then I might be a little reluctant to tell you everything because if I say something that could get my parent in trouble, I won’t feel good about that. So I’m sure there’s some hesitation in that. But what I’ve discovered recently is that even–when a kid really needs help–even getting the loved one in trouble, it doesn’t matter anymore. They want some help. Right? And the other capacity over there, everything they tell me is confidential. So-even if I have to hotline something, almost everything that came out of their mouth was confidential. So, they opened up about a lot of stuff.
When circumstances of child abuse or neglect came up in discussions with minors experiencing sex trafficking, Bruce stated disclosure of mandated reporting to the minor was important, while simultaneously indicating to the child that other dynamics of their conversation could remain private, and confidentiality could otherwise be safe guarded. This enhanced communication and helped build trusting relationships between anti-trafficking professionals and the sex trafficked minors they worked with.
Reunifying with Family Members Involved in Trafficking
Cassandra explained that even when kids were directly trafficked by their parents, or a parent provided their own sex work clients access to their child, kids often still loved and wanted a relationship with their parent. This was a complex reality that practitioners often struggled with in practice,
But unfortunately these kids are older, so they have a relationship with their parents.
And mom, you know, is everything. I think my one child is beginning to realize that her mom is very detrimental to her. But that’s something she has to realize for herself. We can’t tell her that.
When working with kids, Cassandra explained that active listening and allowing a child to form their own views of their parent and situation was important. Anita, a social service provider, also found that children were bonded to their parents or family members. She noted that practices with minors must be survivor-centered, and focus on working towards reunification in some cases. Anita highlighted the importance of respecting the boundaries survivors set with family and that the family’s role in survivors’ lives is their decision, but Anita emphasized simultaneously working therapeutically with children in such circumstances,
I experienced that in Children’s Division too. No matter what these parents or these family members did to these kids, they had that desire to maintain a relationship and contact with parents. So, I mean, we have to respect that, because that’s going to happen. So we have to do our best to foster growth and change within their home environment, and kind of broaden their horizons within everyone in the home. But then we also have to give the child the opportunity to get to a point where they can determine for themselves whether or not it’s worth it to continue and maintain some of those relationships. Because again, that’s your family. That’s who’s going to be there for you no matter what, thick and thin. But sometimes you have to get to the point where you realize, “You know what? They’re not healthy for me, either, so I have to love you from a distance.“ And know that that’s okay, too. I think they need the support in that, because there’s so many times where they’re forced to try and reconcile with the family when they might not be ready to or want to.
Anita indicated that practices with minors must be survivor-centered. This included respecting the boundaries survivors set with their family members and advocating for the family member’s role (or lack thereof) in survivors’ lives. Anita described working on a case-by-case basis to foster growth and change in the family and working with the child to explore dynamics of healthy relationships. However, Anita also delineated that reunification is not always possible if families are not willing to engage in growth and change to create a safe home environment. She stated,
It’s one of those things. It’s kind of gray area. That’s not necessarily so black and white all the time, because sometimes you may be in the black and can move to the white. But everybody has to be willing to do the work, and sometimes family isn’t willing to do it.
Janet similarly indicated that at times, reunification was an aim in cases of family involved trafficking or exposure to a trafficking situation, and the complex and competing feelings tied to reunification of a sex trafficked minor with their parent,
Okay, so then the other challenge is when you do have a parent who’s cleaned herself up, and I think it’s the therapist and the staff try really hard to try to change your thinking on that person. Because they may have prostituted their child, and they may have been on drugs, and they may whatever, but now they’ve straightened themselves out and they want their child back. And you’re [the service provider] like … yeah, that’s a hard one…’Cause on the one hand, you want to be supportive of this person who’s changed their life. Then on the other hand, you think, is there risk?
When asked, “How do you reconcile those conflicting modes of thought?” Janet replied,
No matter what, deep down, if it’s a mom or if it’s a parent, that’s gonna be their loyalty no matter what that person’s done to them. So you really want them to be successful in the long run.
Reunification was described as a challenge by professionals. They were aware of the risk, but aimed to balance risk with the children’s desire for a relationship with their family members. They noted that if a relationship was going to be there no matter what, therapists could help support and guide a child and the parent through this reunification to aim for a safe home and healing for both the child and the parent.
Discussion and Practice Implications
Mandated Reporting
Respondents indicated that when they encountered minors who experienced sex trafficking involving a family member, they reported it to the Children’s Division hotline when direct trafficking was implicated or the home environment was not considered safe for the child. As mandated reporters, respondents aimed to discuss with the minors what they were and were not required to report, describing this as a best practice. This is consistent with the work of White and colleagues (2023) who recommended practitioners should be familiar with their state mandated reporting laws, and to disclose their role as mandated reporters. Respondents indicated that this practice allowed for trust building, and ultimately better communication and disclosure that would allow the practitioner to better engage in resource referral. The research findings also showed talking honestly about their role as a mandated reporter, and what needed to be reported and what was assuredly confidential, facilitated open dialogue conducive to disclosure.
Structural Responses
Trafficking involving a family member was complex, as illustrated by the respondents in this study. Direct family involved trafficking, in which parents or other family members were trafficking their child for drugs or money, was discussed. This supports prior research finding parental trafficking was often related to active substance use disorder. Reid (2015) found the primary motivations for family members to engage in trafficking were for drugs or money to support a drug habit or for financial gain more broadly. Reed and colleagues (2019) similarly reported family members trafficking their children for drugs. Sprang and Cole (2018) also found that nearly 82% of their sample of minors trafficked by family members involved drugs as a motivation for trafficking. The current study supports prior research by similarly finding drugs as a motivation for direct trafficking of children, implicating wider accessibility of in-patient and out-patient substance use disorder treatment as a preventative measure.
The research also showed that family members were involved in trafficking situations indirectly, either through complicity with their child’s commercial sex exchanges, by allowing access of their own sex work clients to their children and looking the other way, or by modeling commercial sex involvement. Less is known about scenarios in which family members do not directly traffic a child, but may benefit from the trafficking and/or avoid intervening on the child’s behalf. In such circumstances, respondents indicated dire need of these family members, including homelessness and lack of financial resources. This suggests the need for structural measures to prevent and respond to sex trafficking involving family members’ complicity. Expanding poverty alleviation programs, housing subsidies and access to safe and affordable housing could reduce vulnerability to family involved trafficking.
Complicity, described here as occurring when parents allow their own commercial sex clients to access their children, whether by not supervising clients or by looking the other way, is infrequently discussed in the research literature (White, 2023). Modeling of commercial sex, in contrast, is reasonably well established in the research literature. Raphael (2020) found those involved in commercial sex often had family members who were traffickers or pimps, or who sold sex themselves. Oselin (2014) similarly found in her study of people exiting the sex industry that many entered the industry in adolescence and a parent facilitated or modeled commercial sex. This is sometimes referred to as the intergenerational transmission of prostitution, where the business is learned. Reid (2015) similarly found family members, particularly mothers, trained their daughters in their commercial sex trade involvement. White and colleagues (2023) indicated in their case study, that parents encouraged their children to engage in commercial sex, and children were exposed to environments where commercial sex was occurring. When this involves minors, it equates sex trafficking. Accordingly, the current study supports prior work in this area. The structural measures discussed previously, targeting root sources of the need to engage in commercial sex where children are present may ameliorate commercial sex trafficking of children by proxy.
Practices Involving Reunification
Survivor Centered Practice and Motivational Interviewing
Respondents reflected upon practice implications for scenarios in which children may have bonds with their parents and desire a relationship with them. This dynamic was present for all forms of family involvement in trafficking uncovered in this study- direct trafficking, complicity, allowing access of sex work clients, or modeling commercial sex. Respondents indicated practitioners working with survivors of family involved sex trafficking should be prepared for children to desire a relationship with their parents and should be equipped to work toward reunification in such cases. This complements the work of Sprang and Cole (2018), who found that nearly two thirds of minors trafficked by a family member in their study (N = 30) maintained contact with their trafficker following identification and resource access. While challenging for practitioners in the current study, respondents indicated ongoing contact with a family member involved in their trafficking situation should be expected and highlighted the importance of providing survivor centered practice meeting survivors’ goals and needs, while simultaneously emphasizing safety and healthy relationships. Survivor-centered practice highlighted in the current study included respecting the boundaries that minors set with their family members and advocating for the family member’s role (or lack thereof) in survivors’ lives as determined by the survivor. Engaging in motivational interviewing techniques with minors to emphasize safety and healthy vs. unhealthy relationships is a practice recommendation drawn from the research findings. Working with the minor to understand healthy relationships, including how this knowledge could apply to their family relationships, was also recommended by respondents in this study. This finding supports and contributes to the extant research finding motivational interviewing a useful practice technique with minors in other types of trafficking situations (Gerassi & Esbensen, 2020).
Resource Provision to Families
Working with the family member to build a positive environment for the child to return home to was also described by respondents as a primary strategy. An organization that study respondents referred clients to provided therapy for family members and worked with them to gain needed resources as well, to address some of the root sources of the problem. This might include resource referral to substance use disorder inpatient/ detox services, assistance applying for food stamps and/or housing, and therapy to address the family members’ own experiences with exploitation.
Safety Planning
Practitioners reported being concerned about ongoing safety risks; however, surprisingly, they did not discuss safety planning with minors upon reunification with family members who were involved in their trafficking situation. Ostensibly, safety planning with minors returning home following family involved trafficking should be a priority recommendation, along with ongoing risk assessments. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) could be used as a risk assessment tool to guide anti-trafficking professionals in their work with minors who are reunified with family members who were involved in their trafficking situation (Sellers et al., 2017; Viljoen et al., 2012). Reid and colleagues (2015) found witnessing domestic violence between caregivers, child sexual and physical abuse, neglect and/or abandonment were more common among sex trafficking survivors who experienced the trafficking by a family member, indicating the need for enhanced safety planning and protection and ongoing risk assessment in cases of reunification. Edwards and colleagues found “cases involving family members as perpetrators were less likely to have human trafficking related criminal charges filed and less likely to involve the removal of the child or children (2022, p.12).” The present study, while not specifically exploring charges filed against those implicated in family-involved trafficking, supports this work by finding an emphasis on reunification if the child expressed a desire for it. Accordingly, practitioners should be prepared to work with minors and their family members to mitigate risk in such circumstances. Future research is needed to explore the components and practices of safety planning that survivors and the practitioners who work with them find most helpful in situations of family involved trafficking.
Training for Foster Families and Child Welfare Professionals
Respondents noted that when parents did not take the measures required to regain custody of their children, reunification was not possible. In such cases, foster placements were provided. Respondents did not discuss the importance of informing foster parents that these minors would be considered higher risk for retrafficking. Based on prior research showing family involvement or modeling, and the high incidence of retrafficking, the authors recommend training to foster families gaining children who have experienced trafficking. Furthermore, prior research indicates family involved trafficking may be distinct from other forms of STM, in that children experiencing this type of trafficking may be more likely to come from rural communities (Sprang & Cole, 2018; Edwards et al., 2022; Heil & Nichols, 2019) and may be more likely to engage with child welfare systems compared to children with an intimate partner trafficker or other third party trafficker (Twis et al., 2020). As such, training of foster families as well as staff in child welfare systems to identify family involved trafficking is called for.
Limitations
A limitation of the current study is its lack of generalizability; it reflects the experiences of practitioners in social services and the criminal justice system in two study sites in one Midwestern metropolitan region. The aim of qualitative work is not to generalize, rather, it is to provide context and examine underexplored areas. The current study meets these aims by contributing to the limited body of work examining family involved trafficking and related social work and criminal justice practices with survivors and their families. However, there may be regional distinctions in the ways sex trafficking of minors manifests, as well as responses to the issue. Moreover, there may be dynamics of family involved trafficking in which survivors are not interacting with social service or criminal justice organizations and personnel that are distinct from those who do engage with these organizations. Further research should explore dynamics of family involved trafficking that are unreported and/or under-identified, perhaps through an organization of survivors such as the National Survivor Network. Furthermore, the scope of this study was limited to professionals in social services and the criminal justice system. Future research should focus on the experiences of survivors of family involved trafficking, as well as their interactions and insights about working with social service and criminal justice system personnel. Research examining family members’ perspectives about their involvement could also hold important implications for prevention. Furthermore, the current study is limited to the focus on sex trafficking of minors. Prior literature shows family involved trafficking of adults, and family involved labor trafficking as well (White et al., 2023). In addition, the ways intersecting identities impact survivors’, parents’, and practitioners’ experiences with family involved trafficking and responses is a recommendation for further research in this area. Research shows underidentification of people of color, men and boys, gender and sexual minorities, and people with disabilities, as well as barriers to service access (Gerassi & Skinkis, 2020; Nichols et al., 2023; Deckert et al., 2018). Moreover, prior negative interactions with social service agencies and law enforcement reflecting racism, ciscentrism, heterosexism, classism, and/or anti-immigrant sentiments also impedes service access and utilization (Dank et al., 2015; Egyes, 2017; Farrell et al., 2019; Schwarz et al., 2017). As such, research examining barriers and facilitators to service access and utilization drawing from an intersectional lens is necessary to catalyze anti-oppressive practice in responding to family involved trafficking (Bryant Davis & Tummala-Narra 2017; Gerassi, Klein et al., 2021; Nichols et al., 2023).
Conclusion
The current project aimed to address the gap in the extant research literature examining family involved trafficking, and to explore related practices in social and criminal justice systems. Results indicate family members directly traffic children, are otherwise complicit because they benefit financially, allow access of their sex work clients to their children, or model commercial sex involvement. Results show implications for practice include disclosing the practitioner’s role as a mandated reporter, providing survivor-centered practice working with minors (e.g., working towards reunification and/or finding alternate placements), training of foster families in dynamics of sex trafficking, discussing healthy vs. unhealthy relationships, using motivational interviewing techniques, engaging in safety planning, family and individual therapy, and case management with families to provide resource referrals to address root sources of the problem. Structural changes, such as access to safe and affordable housing, access to healthcare (including SUD related care), and poverty alleviation programs are also implicated by the research findings. The authors are hopeful that this article will be a catalyst toward further research examining family involved trafficking, and related promising practices working with survivors and families.
References
Albanese, J. (2007). Commercial sexual exploitation of children: What do we know and what can we do about it? National Institute of Justice.
Cole, J., & Anderson, E. (2013). University of Kentucky, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research. Sex trafficking of minors in Kentucky. Center on Trauma and Children.
Cole, J., & Sprang, G. (2015). Sex trafficking of minors in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural communities. Child Abuse & Neglect, 40, 113–123. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.015.
Cole, J., Sprang, G., Lee, R., & Cohen, J. (2014). The trauma of commercial sexual Exploitation of Youth: A comparison of CSE victims to sexual abuse victims in a clinical sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, November 6, 1–25. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/0886260514555133.
Dank, M., Yu, L., Yahner, J., Pelletier, E., Mora, M., & Conner, B. (2015). Locked in: Interactions with the criminal justice and child welfare systems for LGBTQ youth, YMSM, and YWSE who engage in survival sex. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/71446/2000424-Locked-In-Interactions-with-the-Criminal-Justiceand-Child-Welfare-Systems-for-LGBTQ-Youth-YMSM-and-YWSW-Who-Engage-in-Survival-Sex.pdf.
Deckert, J. C., Warren, S., & Britton, H. (2018). Midwestern service provider narratives of migrant experiences: Legibility, vulnerability, and exploitation in human trafficking. Advances in Social Work, 3(18), 887–910. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.18060/21657.
Edwards, E., Middleton, J. S., & Cole, J. (2022). Family controlled trafficking in the United States: Victim characteristics, system response, and case outcomes. Journal of Human Trafficking. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/23322705.2022.2039866.
Egyes, L. (2017). Borders and intersections: The unique vulnerabilities of LGBTQ immigrants to trafficking. In E. Heil, & A. Nichols (Eds.), Broadening the scope of human trafficking (pp. 107–123). Carolina Academic Press.
Farrell, A., Dank, M., deVries, L., Kafafian, M., Hughes, A., & Lockwood, S. (2019). Failing victims? Challenges of the police response to human trafficking. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 649–673. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1111/1745-9133.12456.
Fedina, L., Williamson, C., & Perdue, T. (2016). Risk factors for domestic child sex trafficking in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 13. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/0886260516662306.
Gerassi, L. B., & Esbensen, K. (2020). Motivational interviewing (MI) among providers in a Midwest region: Perceived use, applicability, and challenges to engagement with individuals at risk of sex trafficking. Journal of Social Work, 21, 4. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/1468017320919856.
Gerassi, L. B., & Skinkis, S. (2020). An intersectional content analysis of inclusive language and imagery among sex trafficking related services. Violence and Victims, 35(3), 400–417. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1891/VV-D-18-00204.
Gerassi, L. B., Klein, L. B., & Rosales, M. D. C. (2021). Moving toward critical consciousness and anti-oppressive practice approaches with people at risk of sex trafficking: Perspectives from social service providers. Affilia, 37(3), 431–447. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/08861099211025531.
Heil, E. C., & Nichols, A. J. (2019). Human trafficking in the Midwest: A case study of St. Louis and the bi-state area. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Koegler, E., Howland, W., Gibbons, P., Teti, M., & Stoklosa, H. (2022). When her visa expired, the family refused to renew it, intersections of human trafficking and domestic violence: Qualitative document analysis of case examples from a major midwest city. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(7–8), NP4133–NP4159. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1177/0886260520957978.
Murphy, L. (2017). Labor and sex trafficking among homeless youth. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5887a2a61b631bfbbc1ad83a/t/59498e69197aea24a33a640b/1497992809780/CovenantHouseReport.pdf.
Nichols, A. J., Gerassi, L. B., Gilbert, K., & Taylor, E. (2022a). Provider challenges in responding to retrafficking of juvenile justice-involved domestic minor sex trafficking survivors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 126, 0145–2134. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105521.
Nichols, A. J., Preble, K. M., & Cox, A. (2022b). A state-level analysis of demographic characteristics and sex trafficking experiences of survivors. Journal of Human Trafficking. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/23322705.2021.2016268.
Nichols, A. J., Preble, K. M., Cox, A., Nichols, E., & Amann, W. (2023). An examination of sex trafficking by race and ethnicity in the state of Missouri on State and local levels: Implications for anti-oppressive practice. Journal of Human Trafficking. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/23322705.2023.2225993.
Oselin, S. (2014). Leaving prostitution: Getting out and staying out of sex work. New York University Press.
Polaris (2021). Polaris Analysis of 2021 Data from the National Human Trafficking Hotline. Retrieved from: Polaris-Analysis-of-2021-Data-from-the-National-Human-Trafficking-Hotline.pdf (polarisproject.org).
Raphael, J. (2020). Parents as pimps: Survivor accounts of trafficking of children in the United States. Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence, 4, 4, 7. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.23860/dignity.2019.04.04.07.
Reed, S., Kennedy, M. A., Decker, M., & Cimino, A. (2019). Friends, family and boyfriends: An analysis of relationship pathways into commercial sexual exploitation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 90, 1–12. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.01.016.
Reid, J. A., Huard, J., & Haskell, R. A. (2015). Family-facilitated juvenile sex trafficking. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(3), 361–376. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/0735648X.2014.967965.
Schwarz, C., Kennedy, E., & Britton, H. (2017). Aligned across difference: Structural injustice, sex work, and human trafficking. Feminist Formations, 29(2), 1–25. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1353/ff.2017.0014.
Sellers, B., Desmarais, S., & Hanger, M. (2017). Measurement of change in dynamic factors using the START: AV. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 17(3), 198–215. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/24732850.2017.1317560.
Sprang, G., & Cole, J. (2018). Familial sex trafficking of minors: Trafficking conditions, clinical presentation, and system involvement. Journal of Family Violence, 33, 185–195. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1007/s10896-018-9950-y.
Twis, M. K. (2020). Predicting different types of victim-trafficker relationships: A multinomial logistic regression analysis. Journal of Human Trafficking, 6(4), 450–466. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/23322705.2019.1634963 Twis, M., Gillespie, L. &Greenwood, D. (2022). An analysis of romantic partnership dynamics in domestic minor sex trafficking case files. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, 5395–5418.
Viljoen, J., Beneteau, J., Gulbransen, E., Brodersen, E., Desmarais, S., Nicholls, T., & Cruise, K. (2012). Assessment of multiple risk outcomes, strengths, and change with the START:AV: A short-term prospective study with adolescent offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(3), 165–180. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1080/14999013.2012.737407.
White, N. C., Roblchaux, K., Huang, A., & Luo, C. (2023). When families become perpetrators: A case series on familial trafficking. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rowan.edu/10.1007/s10896-023-00522-w.