Abstract
Drawing from 12 in-depth interviews and two focus groups with prosecutors, attorneys, victim advocates, social service providers, and police in an urban Midwestern city, challenges to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases are examined. Challenges to identification included trafficking techniques such as coercion, online solicitation, hidden venues, and interstate movement, as well as issues with police reporting and investigation. Challenges to prosecution involved police reporting errors and evidentiary requirements, the statute of limitations, overlapping jurisdictions, and issues with victim testimony. The aim in highlighting such obstacles is to emphasize the dynamics that may contribute to lowered numbers of identified and prosecuted cases, and consequent underestimation of sex trafficking prevalence. Implications for policy and practice are drawn from these findings.
Introduction
The criminal justice system and social service organizations have increased attention to and resources allocated toward sex trafficking in the United States. These relatively new advancements warrant further understandings of the dynamics that benefit and challenge law enforcement, victim services, and prosecution to better identify, investigate, and prosecute sex trafficking cases and to better serve survivors. Yet, such understandings are limited in the current academic discourse. Furthermore, the extant literature is unclear about how limitations to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking impact perceptions of prevalence. Prevalence arguments are largely based upon data taken from police reports, victims, victim services, and prosecuted cases of sex trafficking and are wrought with operational, definitional, and methodological challenges (Brennan, 2005; Clawson, Layne, & Small, 2006; Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Rand, 2009; Weitzer, 2010). Moreover, such arguments are often removed from issues specifically impacting prosecution. In fact, very few studies emphasize challenges to prosecuting sex trafficking cases and the consequent impact on the number of prosecuted cases (Farrell et al., 2012; Clawson, Dutch, Lopez, & Tiapula, 2008; Reid, 2010). In addition, the extant literature in the United States largely examines dynamics in southern/Border States 1 ; research explicitly investigating sex trafficking in Midwestern cities is limited (Raphael, Reichert, & Powers, 2010; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Smith, Vardaman, & Snow, 2009; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). The current study works to expand the knowledge base on sex trafficking by uncovering the dynamics that are central to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases through inductive analysis of 12 in-depth interviews and two focus groups with community-based response members in the justice system and social services in St. Louis, Missouri. The purpose of this study is to examine the potential problems associated with identification of sex trafficking victims and the challenges to prosecution specific to a Midwestern city in the United States.
Sex Trafficking Prevalence and Victim Identification
As awareness of the existence of sex trafficking in the United States has increased, so has research in the field. Central to this discussion are the issues of victim identification and the general prevalence of trafficking (Busch-Armendariz, Nsonwu, Cook Heffron, Garza, & Hernandez, 2009; Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Hepburn & Simon, 2010; Hopper, 2004; Kotrla, 2010; Rand, 2009; Reid, 2010; Stransky & Finkelhor, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2008; Weitzer, 2010). The extant trafficking literature in the United States reports wide variations in trafficking estimates, which are often reflective of a single-source data collection bias. For example, the Department of Justice reported that “federally funded task forces opened 2,515 suspected incidents of human trafficking for investigation between January 2008 and June 2010,” 80% of which were identified as sex trafficking cases (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011, p. 1). This averages to approximately 1,000 federally investigated incidents per year. Similarly, Kyckelhahn, Beck, and Cohen (2009) found in the Human Trafficking Reporting System that 1,020 alleged incidents of sex trafficking took place between 2007 and 2008 in the United States. Yet, the Department of Justice estimates that since 2001, there have been approximately 100,000 to 150,000 victims of sex trafficking in the United States (Department of Justice, 2006). Moreover, the advocacy-based organization, Tolerance Equality Awareness Movement (2011), cites that since the beginning of the 21st century, nearly a million women and children have been sex-trafficked into the United States. Thus, there is some discrepancy in estimates of prevalence on a national level (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011; Clawson, Layne & Small, 2006; Farrell et al., 2012; Kyckelhahn et al., 2009; Rand, 2009; U.S. Department of Justice, 2006; Weitzer, 2010).
Beyond the national estimates, local advocates and law enforcement generate their own statistics to either verify or negate the existence of trafficking in their own communities. For example, in St. Louis, the city examined in this article, the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (2011) recorded 64 hotline calls of which only 24, based on legal indicators, were referenced as potential trafficking situations. Between 2006 and 2011, there were just 24 individuals identified and confirmed by the legal system as victims of human trafficking in St. Louis, yet other research ranks St. Louis as number 18 on the list of “the most intense [top 20] trafficking jurisdictions in the country” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006, p. 35). Thus, there is no real consensus as to the prevalence of sex trafficking in the United States, let alone in a single community such as St. Louis. The literature reveals that the variation in estimates is expected due to the methodological challenges related to conducting research on such a vulnerable and hidden population (Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Farrell et al., 2012; Goodey, 2008; Kotrla, 2010; Rand, 2009; Reid, 2010; Stransky & Finkelhor, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2008). Among the arguments indicating why there exists an inability to find “truth” in the numbers, the following themes emerge: police identification and victim reporting issues, trafficking techniques, and prosecutorial challenges. These themes are detailed below.
Challenges to Identification
Police Identification and Victim Reporting
Because police are many times the first-responders to a trafficking situation, many researchers use police reports to generate numbers of human trafficking in a particular community. However, as Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005) argue, these data should be approached with caution: Cases that are registered by law enforcement are different from all other cases of trafficking because they actually were discovered, and taken seriously by the police. The cases identified are likely to be influenced by . . . the ability of police and law enforcement agents to recognize trafficking when confronted with it . . . (Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005, p. 24)
Yet, researchers have found that police may be limited in their knowledge of trafficking, as well as their ability to identify and respond to it (Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005). For example, D. Wilson, Walsh, and Kleuber (2006) found in 163 police departments across the United States that only 12% of police officers believed trafficking was a significant issue in their departments, 92% had not received any training in human trafficking, and 98% did not have specific policies in place to address trafficking. Similarly, Farrell, McDevitt, & Fahy (2008) found that nearly three quarters of local, state, and national law enforcement believed trafficking was non-existent or rare in their jurisdictions. Ostensibly, police recognition of trafficking is important in addressing the problem. However, the justice system largely places responsibility for police identification and reporting of trafficking on the victims themselves (Ugarte, Zarate, & Farley, 2003).
Yet, victims may not want to report their victimization and experiences to police—or to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—for a variety of reasons (Adams, 2011). In Florida, Heil (2012) observed that victims experienced physical and psychological abuses from their traffickers, which affected their willingness to report. Reid (2010) found in a southern U.S. city that adolescent trafficking victims did not understand their victimization, maintained “trauma-bonds” with their traffickers, held fear of the trafficker, and thus did not wish to report it. Researchers in Texas and Florida found fear of deportation deterred victims from disclosing to police (Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Heil, 2012). In general, victims are reluctant to seek assistance, possibly because they believe “that social service providers will not take their claims seriously, that the police will charge them for some offense, or that the authorities are unable to protect them from traffickers’ reprisals” (Hodge, 2008, p. 144). As Tyldum and Brunovskis (2005) noted, “ . . . the probability of being identified by the police will depend on how the victims themselves behave in contact with representatives of law enforcement” (p. 25). Issues such as police training in identifying trafficking and victims’ assessment of the potential for negative ramifications from traffickers and law enforcement must be taken into serious consideration when relying on police data to generate statistics on human trafficking, as these data only reflect reported cases. Furthermore, the way trafficking is defined impacts police reporting and identification as well.
Defining Trafficking and Misreporting
Another related challenge identified in the criminological research is the way sex trafficking is defined (Hughes, Chon, & Ellerman, 2007; Rand, 2009; Raphael et al., 2010; Reid, 2010). According to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, a severe form of trafficking is defined as, a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. (TVPA, Section 103, 8a and b)
This definition is clear in the exploitative and victimizing nature of trafficking (see Farrell et al., 2012) However, there are some definitional challenges associated with TVPA in the way it is operationalized and translated into practice. For example, some researchers, as well as law enforcement, read this definition as victims having the status of “illegal immigrant,” or conflate sex trafficking with smuggling, migration, or otherwise crossing borders (Kara, 2010; Outshoorn, 2005; Weitzer, 2010). In such cases, only international victims are counted as victims of sex trafficking. This operationalization of trafficking completely ignores the number of domestic victims, such as runaways, who are trafficked throughout the United States without crossing international borders (Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004). Moreover, Farrell et al. (2012) delineated, “State anti-trafficking laws differ widely in both the definition of what actions constitute a human trafficking crime and the focus of the state response to the problem.” Furthermore, J. Wilson and Dalton (2008) found variations in the ways police defined and responded to sex trafficking from city to city, even within the same state.
As a result of inconsistent definitions of sex trafficking, law enforcement may also misidentify victims as criminals (Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Rand, 2009; Raphael et al., 2010). As noted by Hopper (2004), many trafficking cases are handled as crimes of human smuggling, causing victims to be misidentified as illegal immigrants. This in turn may lead to the deportation of victims before the trafficking situation has been identified (Hepburn & Simon, 2010). Furthermore, Raphael et al. (2010) found domestic trafficking victims were misidentified as prostitutes in Chicago. Similarly, Heil (2012) observed that trafficking victims over the age of 18 were misidentified by police as prostitutes in Florida. As their activities were criminalized under the charge of prostitution, and because of the incorrect assumption of their voluntary engagement in sex work, their victimization was “not deemed worthy of federal prosecution” as human trafficking cases (Heil, 2012, p. 57). Thus, the data reported by law enforcement are often under the auspices of misidentification and mislabeling, which leads to underrepresentation in victim estimates (Farrell et al., 2012; Heil, 2012; Rand, 2009; Raphael et al., 2010). Because of the issues associated with data collected by law enforcement, researchers that use these data to analyze the prevalence of sex trafficking are likely to misrepresent the entire spectrum of trafficking in the observed community.
Trafficking Techniques
Aside from the issues with police recognition, investigation, and reporting, it is important to note that traffickers’ techniques work to prevent detection and contact with police and social service providers in the first place, interfering with initial identification (Brennan, 2005; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Tyldum & Brunovskis, 2005). Traffickers use techniques to keep their victims and activities relatively hidden, considering trafficking involves illegal activity, and large profit margins are at stake (Ekberg, 2004; Farrell et al., 2012; Heil & Nichols, 2013; Kotrla, 2010). For example, Davis (2006) stated that traffickers keep their victims constantly mobile to prevent getting caught. Other researchers have also noted the use of interstate circuits to move victims from city to city to prevent identification (Smith et al., 2009; Wiliamson & Prior, 2009). Furthermore, researchers have found traffickers’ use of the Internet contributes to surreptitious sex trafficking solicitation (Farrell et al., 2012; Kotrla, 2010; Kunze, 2010; Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2009). Ugarte et al. (2003) found sex trafficking covertly occurred in massage parlors, strip clubs, escort agencies, in cars or motels, or in the field tents of migrant workers. Similarly, Heil (2012) found trafficked prostitution taking place in hidden brothels, make-shift bars, and the basements of the wealthy elite throughout southern Florida. Busch-Armendariz et al. (2009) indicated that in Texas, traffickers used “hidden venues” such as spas and clubs. Furthermore, Farrell et al. (2012) noted trafficking occurred primarily in residences and also through use of the Internet. When both prostitution and solicitation occur indoors as opposed to in the street, or through relatively hidden avenues and techniques, it is more difficult to identify. Moreover, traffickers look for victims who appear vulnerable or homeless, or runaways who are less likely to be looked for (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Kotrla, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Prior research also finds traffickers use coercion to keep their victims hidden. For example, Busch-Armendariz et al. (2009) found that in Texas, traffickers used threats of physical violence to victims and their families, as well as psychological coercion associated with the constant fear of deportation. Similarly, in Florida, Heil (2012) also found traffickers’ threats to family members prevented victims from seeking or accepting assistance or reporting their traffickers. Moreover, traffickers may manipulate victims through promises of love and security, where victims themselves keep their activities hidden due to “trauma-bonds” or love for their traffickers, who may have initially posed as boyfriends (Lloyd, 2012; Smith et al., 2009). In sum, trafficking operations work in ways that prevent victims from being identified as trafficking victims.
Challenges to Prosecution
An emerging body of research also reveals challenges specifically related to federal prosecution that may potentially skew estimates of sex trafficking (Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). These challenges primarily include local investigation error, time constraints, lack of victim-centered protocols and resources, and lack of organizational support. For example, Farrell et al. (2012) found that A common complaint stated by federal prosecutors is that they are not receiving “good” referrals, whether it be because local law enforcement is referring cases with weak evidence and few witnesses . . . or because local law enforcement is botching the initial investigation which leaves prosecutors little evidence to work with. (p. 200)
If federal prosecutors are unable to assist local police with the collection of evidence at the initial stage of the investigation, crucial material could be missed, thereby forcing prosecutors to not pursue the case.
In addition, even if the case has enough evidence to be brought forth for prosecution, it may take up to 2 years to prosecute the case. There exists a real challenge in not only maintaining victim participation throughout the entire prosecution process but also preserving victims’ credibility, as their testimony may change (Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Farrell et al. (2012) found that “without victim and witness cooperation and testimony, almost all of the federal prosecutors interviewed stated that they would be unable to continue with the case” (p. 202). Due to the time constraints associated with a trafficking case, the victim may become frustrated with the process or may simply disappear. Moreover, Hepburn and Simon (2010) found U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at times deported victims, causing problems both for the victims who were wrongly deported, and for prosecution due to loss of witnesses and victim testimony. Without a victim or victim testimony, prosecutors have a much more difficult task in persuading a jury that trafficking has occurred (Farrell et al., 2012; Reid, 2010).
Researchers have further emphasized the importance of survivor-centered processes involved in prosecution. For example, Smith et al. (2009) stated, Traumatized children . . . typically require a lengthy amount of time before they will disclose the facts of their victimization and only if approached with advanced interview techniques to help them with this disclosure. For these reasons, it is critical in cases of domestic minor sex trafficking that law enforcement pursue innovative or alternative investigation to corroborate the victim’s allegations. Currently, law enforcement agencies typically are not trained in alternative investigative approaches and/or are not provided with adequate resources to develop and initiate these alternative techniques. (p. vi)
Moreover, Smith et al. (2009) noted, “prosecution of the traffickers is too frequently based solely on the victim’s cooperation and testimony. This approach places the burden on the victim rather than on the investigators.” Furthermore, Reid (2010) noted victims were often not willing to testify against their traffickers, largely due to lack of victim protection and victim-centered processes. Similarly, Smith et al. (2009) indicated the importance of victim services; they found such services were mutually beneficial to prosecution and victims, as witnesses were more likely to be available and to cooperate, and gain the services that they needed.
Beyond weak evidence and victim cooperation over time, federal prosecutors have noted that within the federal law, there is pressure to prove all three elements of force, fraud, and coercion, even though the law specifically states that only one of the three elements is needed for prosecution. Farrell et al. (2012) found that “prosecutors generally realize that the law does not actually require all three elements, but . . . they want to have all three elements to ensure that the case isn’t overturned on appeal” (p. 204). If all three elements are present, there is clear evidence of criminal intent, which makes for a more promising outlook for a successful prosecution. Without all three elements clearly represented, many prosecutors choose not to pursue the case (Farrell et al., 2012). Given the challenges presented specifically to federal prosecutors, data derived from federal prosecutions, as well as use of prosecution rates to measure prevalence, must be met with caution, for potential trafficking cases may be dropped due to lack of evidence or witness cooperation, or loss of key witnesses. Very few studies explicitly examine prosecution, thus the knowledge base is limited in this area (Farrell et al., 2012; Hepburn & Simon, 2010; Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009).
Overall, when discussing the prevalence of sex trafficking on a national scale or at the local level, researchers must be cautious in relying on a single source of information. Police data are dependent on training, charging decisions, and victims’ appraisal of the negative consequences associated with reporting to or cooperating with law enforcement. Furthermore, traffickers work to keep victims hidden, impeding initial identification. Estimating prevalence based upon prosecuted cases is problematic because of the challenges associated with prosecution and dropped cases.
The current study works to address two knowledge gaps in the extant research. First, in addition to the issues with victim reporting, police misreporting, or failing to identify trafficking, challenges to prosecution are also important as they impact prosecution rates and consequent perceptions of sex trafficking prevalence. Yet, the research examining challenges to prosecution outside of initial identification are quite limited in the current academic discourse (Goodey, 2008; Reid, 2010; Farrell et al., 2012). Thus, researching challenges to prosecution provides an opportunity to further examine barriers that may impact the numbers of prosecuted sex trafficking cases. Research uncovering techniques assisting prosecution endeavors are also lacking (Farrell et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2009). Consequently, examining dynamics that support successful prosecution offer an important contribution as well. Second, there is also a geographic gap in the literature, as the extant research largely involves southern and/or U.S. Border States, particularly Texas and Florida, or represents trafficking outside of the United States (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Clawson, Dutch, & Cummings, 2006; Ekberg, 2004; Goodey, 2008; Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Hughes et al., 2007; Kennedy, Klein, Bristowe, Cooper, & Yuille, 2007; Liu, 2012; Reid, 2010; Schauer & Wheaton, 2006; Smith, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2008; Ugarte et al., 2003). The literature specifically examining trafficking in the Midwest United States is limited, and it is unclear whether the same dynamics impacting identification and reporting found in the extant research apply in Midwestern cities (Raphael et al., 2010; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). For example, Raphael et al. (2010) emphasized the role of traffickers’ coercion of women and girls in Chicago. J. Wilson and Dalton (2008) focused on minor victims’ psychological trauma and need for social services in Ohio. Williamson and Prior (2009) highlighted minor victims’ experiences with violence, HIV, substance abuse, home and street life, and experiences with social systems in Ohio. Thus, the extant research that does examine areas in the Midwest is limited in its focus specifically on identification and prosecution of sex trafficking cases, as it emphasizes other important issues. This article examines challenges related to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases in a Midwestern city to expand the limited body of work examining the Midwest United States.
Method
The gaps in the extant literature informed the following research questions:
The first research question works to replicate prior studies, to see if findings in a Midwestern city are similar to findings that largely represent cities in southern/U.S. Border States. The second research question works to address a gap in the research literature, as the current body of knowledge is limited in examining barriers to prosecution.
Sample
St. Louis was chosen as a study site because it has been identified as a likely spot for trafficking and transport (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). The city is susceptible to trafficking based on a number of risk factors, including a large number of runaways, a growing immigrant population, a thriving sex trade industry, and geographic location. First, St. Louis houses an international airport, and is at the center of major cross country interstates, making the transportation and subsequent disappearance of victims less complicated for traffickers (The Covering House, 2013). Furthermore, St. Louis has also been identified as the top city in the nation for strip clubs per-capita; strip clubs have been found to be an underground venue for trafficking (Proud, 2013). In addition, St. Louis is one of relatively few cities, 42 in all, with an anti-trafficking task force and local coalition composed of various community partners in the justice system and social services (Moossy, 2009). This study draws from in-depth interviews and two focus groups with 12 total participants, including a federal prosecutor (n = 1), police (n = 3), legal services attorneys and advocates (n = 5), and social service providers (n = 3). The sample was derived from a small member-list of anti-trafficking organizations in St. Louis in 2011. In total, representatives from five organizations took part in the study, including the St. Louis Police Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Covering House, the International Institute, and Legal Services of Eastern Missouri. One organization declined participation, as their program was developing and not operational at the time of this study. Another organization was not chosen for participation, as the participants largely emphasized community awareness and did not work directly with trafficking victims or cases. Consequently, the sample size was small (N = 12), as there were relatively few individuals in St. Louis who were identified as directly working with trafficking cases or victims. Individuals were chosen for the sample because of their direct and in-depth involvement with trafficking victims and cases. The federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office was the prosecutor for the Eastern District of Missouri. The respondents from the police department included members of the anti-trafficking task force—a lieutenant, sergeant, and assistant director of the Division on Sex Crimes. The legal services attorneys and advocates who worked with trafficking cases all worked at the same organization to provide legal services to victims, and were included in the sample because of their direct involvement with victims. Last, members of the non-profit victim service organizations, the Covering House, and the International Institute, were asked to participate in this study due to their work with survivors of sex trafficking regardless of whether the cases received legal or prosecutorial attention. These were the only social service organizations in St. Louis that worked explicitly with sex trafficking victims, and they were chosen specifically for that reason. Participants were recruited by contacting the organizations’ directors, and individually contacting each potential respondent.
Data Collection
Face-to-face interviews and focus groups were conducted with 12 subjects at various times over a 3-month period. Interviews and focus groups took place either at respondents’ offices or at a convenient coffee shop. Each interview lasted 45 min to 1 hr. The interviews were conducted in a conversational manner, letting the subject steer the discussion to what she or he found problematic in identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking in St. Louis. An interview guide was developed based upon themes found in the first few interviews, but other themes and threads were allowed to be addressed within the interviews. The recorded interviews were transcribed word-for-word, and were re-checked for accuracy by two members of the research team.
Data Analysis
Inductive analysis of the transcribed interviews involved both selective coding based upon the research design and open coding (Adler & Adler, 2008; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Open coding first involved low-inference labeling of phenomena found in the transcripts by hand. Then recurring patterns and themes found through the initial coding process were identified and labeled as core categories. The selective coding of the data reflected the research questions, centering on challenges to identification and prosecution, which were also labeled as core categories. Following initial selective and open coding of the transcripts, separate data files of merged narrative accounts for each core category were created (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The merged narrative accounts of core categories were then further coded to identify themes within the core categories. Taxonomic analysis was then used to create subcategories of themes within the core categories, reflecting “types” of challenges with identification, and “types” of challenges to prosecution (Spradley, 1980). The coding was re-checked by the two members of the research team to establish reliability. In the current article, the core categories and their associated themes specifically related to identification and prosecution are examined.
Results
Challenges to Identification
Online solicitation
The research findings indicated that a number of trafficking cases brought forward for prosecution involved online solicitation. Social service providers also noted online solicitation occurred in the cases they worked with that did not involve prosecution. A majority of respondents delineated that traffickers used commonly visited websites with classified ads to advertise for prostitution. In a typical example, a social service provider described the way a victim she worked with was trafficked using the Internet: The mother that I just had the phone call from, her daughter was 13 years old. And I think it was like it was the end of last year, December, I got a call from her, and her daughter had been trafficked for about 9 months up and down [Interstate] 270. And the woman who was trafficking her was using the Backpage to sell her . . .
Respondents further elaborated on the ways in which traffickers embedded messages in their advertisements. While they did not usually directly advertise an exchange of sex for money, traffickers used language stating that the women and girls pictured in the advertisements wanted to have sex, and used codes for the expected payment of sexual services. Moreover, respondents indicated use of specialized codes specifically for underage girls. For example, a social services provider stated, And there are certain code things that they put in those things like “young” “new” “fresh to the scene” “cheerleader” “princess” they use kind of these younger terms as code. And then they also price it out. They won’t say 80 dollars, they’ll say 80 hugs, 80 stars, 80 hearts—and that’s the code.
In addition to social service providers’ discussions of Internet solicitation, the federal prosecutor who participated in the current study also described traffickers’ use of the Internet. As an example of entrée into online solicitation, a federal prosecutor delineated that in a recently prosecuted case of domestic trafficking, the trafficker found a victim in vulnerable circumstances, and she shortly became a trafficking victim: In this instance, there was not much evidence of physical violence, but certainly other forms of manipulation and coercion knowing that our victim was pretty much on the street in pajamas when they picked her up. Invited her back to their house, and within a few days they had put her on the internet and advertised her services for prostitution. They ended up here in St. Louis because they ran a circuit between Minneapolis and lots of other cities in the Midwest, and St. Louis is common destination on the circuit—and through a bunch of other things that I really can’t get into—we ended up catching them here.
Respondents in the current study indicated victims entered into a trafficking situation when pimps found them in vulnerable circumstances. The present study also found that following an initial encounter with a pimp, some victims were soon advertised on the Internet.
Interstate movement
Moreover, as in two of the cases described above, the respondents also illustrated traffickers’ use of “circuits,” or interstate movement of trafficking victims. In many of the cases that were discussed in the interviews, traffickers not only used the Internet for solicitation but also moved victims from city to city to avoid getting caught or attracting too much attention. Thus, solicitations for the same victim would appear in multiple cities at different points in time, following what social service providers and the federal prosecutor described as “running the circuit.” Interstate movement was described as a concern by the police, the federal prosecutor, social service providers, legal advocates, and attorneys as it was seen as a challenge to identify, charge, and prosecute in such cases. For example, the federal prosecutor described another case involving such interstate movement of two underage girls, where the trafficker was caught by chance due to a traffic violation: Another case that I had with another young male pimp, he was going from Illinois down to Memphis, and he had two girls with him—they were sisters. One sister had worked for him as a prostitute already in Illinois. The younger sister had not; it was not the younger sister’s intention to be involved. I don’t know, I think the defendant had a different idea, but they were headed down to Memphis and I believe that he would have done whatever he could to try to persuade them to stay with him for a long time. He got caught and that was a happenstance case. High speed chase on I-55, on a traffic stop, and it kind of just, “ohh what are you three doing? Ohh it’s plausible they’re just going on a road trip,” and then they do a little bit of checking, “ohh there’s a missing person’s report for the girls. I guess you’re not just going on a road trip!”
This indicates that, had it not been for a random stop for a traffic violation, the trafficker would not have been caught or prosecuted, and the survivors would not have been offered services. In such cases, where traffickers are constantly moving the victims, it is difficult to track them. Arrest and consequent charges while on the road were described as rare by the research participants. In addition to interstate movement, keeping trafficking indoors was also a technique used to prevent identification of sex trafficking.
Keeping it inside
The victims were moved from city to city to avoid getting caught, and according to the research participants, prostitution largely occurred in trucks, hotels, residences, or private parties. A social services provider described a training seminar she did for hotel workers, in which she showed the advertisements of girls, and backgrounds in the pictures suggesting hotel settings: But I actually saved some print, some um, screen shots of some of these girls. I think—first of all, you can tell that the pictures were taken in hotels because the hotel bedspreads, you know that paisley polyester look, or that light that’s on the wall that kind of comes out like this, you know. You can see those things in there, which also made it very interesting when I presented that to the Millennium Hotel. I mean, they recognized it right away. They were like “yup, that’s hotels.” You know, they could see it.
Ostensibly, in hotels, the indoor nature of trafficking makes it difficult to find. In addition to hotel rooms, private parties and truck stops were also described as venues for sex trafficking in the Midwest. The relatively insular trucking community may also work to impede identification of trafficking victims. In some cases, women were also kept hidden through coercion and surveillance. A social service provider described such a case with a survivor she’d worked with, who was largely trafficked at private parties: Where, there’s a whole other side of this, and this was [Sherri’s] world, where it was, for the lack of better word, had higher clientele. She would be taken to parties, you know. She wasn’t made to walk the streets. And someone said, “while you were there, why didn’t you tell someone or run?” Besides the whole fear and manipulation and that sort of thing, she said “who do you tell?” she said, “when the clients that are there are attorneys and judges.” And so I think there is a whole other part of this and people view those, I don’t think people view those girls as really victims because, you know, they are made to service a whole different group of men as opposed to . . . I mean, she wasn’t allowed to leave. She wasn’t allowed to, you know, make phone calls or have access. She was held up in a place, but it had alarms—it had high fences with alarms. And so, just because they look different, where they’re made to service people—these men are a higher clientele, so to speak—I think people view that as, well, maybe “you want to be there” kind of thing.
Thus, coercion was used in some cases to control victims’ ability to leave through the use of alarms, gated residences, and the inability to access phones. Furthermore, clientele with higher social status may be associated with labels that impede identification as well.
Barriers to detection, such as online solicitation, hidden venues, coercion, and interstate movement may impact identification and reporting. Yet, the identification of sex trafficking is not just an effect of trafficker-techniques; it is also impacted by challenges within the justice system.
Defining trafficking and misreporting
The research findings in the current study indicated that limitations to police investigations led to misreporting. For example, a police lieutenant indicated that the way crimes are reported and investigated misrepresented trafficking, he stated, “and we talked about UCR, Uniform Crime Reporting, identification and all of that, as probably the biggest problem.” He described how a crime reported as a rape might actually occur in a trafficking case but was reported as a rape and not as trafficking. A police sergeant elaborated further, We are at 80 something rapes just here in St. Louis alone [about 5 months into the year]. A lot of those sometimes involve prostitutes, and there may even be some human trafficking involved in those cases, but you see, where they stop at, is at that state of sexual assault, or forcible rape, or whatever the charge is on the sex side of it. It doesn’t elevate to that human trafficking if that’s not what we’re looking at, if the victim is not coming forward.
Thus, by the sergeant’s admission, cases involving rape and prostitution will not commonly be investigated further to see if trafficking is involved. This was pointed out as a challenge to reporting that was in need of change by both police and social service providers in the focus groups.
Importantly, legal advocates and attorneys in legal services in the current study also indicated that co-occurrence of sex trafficking with domestic violence appeared in cases they worked with. Yet, police did not identify or investigate sex trafficking that co-occurred with domestic violence, indicating a challenge to reporting and identifying sex trafficking in such circumstances. In fact, some police may not make a report at all, according to legal services attorneys and advocates who worked on such cases: We’ve had that experience; I’ve had that experience with a client. They responded to a 9-1-1 call, but because she didn’t tell them to jail him, they didn’t even file a report. And all of that is contrary to their own policy—he should have been taken into custody, but they didn’t. And they should have filed an incident report and they didn’t.
This dynamic indicates problems with some police officers reporting an incident at all, which impedes identification, arrest, charges, and prosecution of both trafficking and domestic violence. The current study found issues with identification of trafficking among individual officers in such circumstances, who did not investigate further to identify the trafficking situation co-occurring with domestic violence. Social service providers, legal advocates, and attorneys stated co-occurring domestic violence and prostitution equated trafficking. Yet, both groups described some officers’ lack of investigation and reporting in this area.
Prosecutors, victim advocates, and attorneys described reporting issues—non-reporting or reporting as another crime, such as rape or prostitution, domestic violence, or illegal status as opposed to trafficking—as challenges to identification. They worked with victims who were identified largely due to happenstance or victims who requested assistance. The research findings indicated that if these cases involving co-occurring crimes were investigated for trafficking and reported properly, the number of victims legal and social services worked with would be definitively higher.
Challenges to Prosecution
The leaky pipeline
Even the cases that were identified and reported as trafficking cases were not always prosecuted as trafficking cases, resulting in what respondents called the “leaky pipeline.” First, a majority of respondents in various organizational contexts indicated that it may be easier for a prosecutor to win a case on a lesser offense. For example, a social service provider stated, So, that’s the other thing in the data is, we’ve actually developed a new way of looking at the data. We call it the leaky pipe line. So you have coming into the pipe line, you have a number of people that are suspected as trafficking victims and then at the end, you have the ones that actually get characterized as a trafficking victim, but then some kind of fall out, you know, for various reasons . . . But prosecution, you know, the US Attorney’s office can say “I believe they’re a victim of human trafficking, but I’m gonna have a hard time proving that in court, but I can prove this charge over here, I’m gonna go this route.”
Consequently, this dynamic impacts the lowered appearance of prevalence in prosecuted cases of sex trafficking. Prosecutors sought a charge they felt confident they could win. In addition to prosecutors’ decision making, victims may also choose an easier route themselves. A legal advocate gave a common response: Sometimes, particularly with foreign nationals, they’ve decided—that they may not try to go for the trafficking designation and instead go for a U-visa, which is they are a victim of crime. And frankly, sometimes that’s easier than going the trafficking route, but the benefits are not the same. So, there are all of these decisions that both victims and law enforcement will make.
Furthermore, in another case involving both domestic violence and sex trafficking, legal services attorneys and victim advocates indicated prosecution for crimes was at times superseded by ICE, where reports and prosecutions were not followed through with, as the trafficker was simply deported: Or if the abuser is undocumented and they take him into custody and call ICE and just skip the whole procedure of prosecuting him for domestic violence. So then it’s hard to get a certificate or certification because they don’t have a report filed. No one ever prosecuted it. They just moved on.
Thus, the goals of ICE at times conflicted with the goals of victims and of prosecution efforts. Another challenge to prosecution in the justice system was victims’ willingness to come forward to report and to testify.
Victim testimony
Due to trauma, fear, coercion, and other factors, respondents reported that the victims they worked with did not always want to initially cooperate with prosecution. Furthermore, victims may not be aware that they are trafficking victims because of such circumstances. Victims may be unaware of what trafficking is, for example, a social services provider stated, “Well and the other thing, the victim isn’t gonna say ‘I’m a victim of human trafficking’ . . . I mean they are not even going to know what that means.” Furthermore, a legal advocate elaborated, The other thing we alert people to is that, it’s typical for a trafficking victim not to realize that they are a trafficking victim. Sometimes they just think they were stupid and so, they got themselves into this mess, or they should have known better, this kind of thing. They think they’re in rough circumstances, but they don’t even realize that it is criminal circumstances. And they also believe what their trafficker tells them about how the police will arrest them. That’s always a big feature.
Social service providers further indicated that as trust developed between legal representatives and survivors, the stories would come out, and a final report may look very different from an initial report. A typical response, provided by a legal services attorney, was I think probably one of the biggest challenges is that many victims of human trafficking are simply not willing or comfortable opening up and telling their full story in the beginning . . . Because we have been working with foreign nationals, of course there is the whole immigration legal assistance that comes into play, and one of the immigration legal representatives who works with us said that she had a client who, she worked on a t-visa applicant application for I think a year. And she said the difference in the first statement and the final statement—it was just so much more filled out, so much more complete, and so much clearer that it was trafficking. But when she first started talking to this woman, interviewing her, she just, not only didn’t feel safe telling this story, but when people are highly traumatized, their minds are all jumbled up. They can’t sort it out. It’s like this big sort of jigsaw puzzle that they don’t even in their own mind have a logical sequence of events, so they can’t tell that story. So, I think that that is one of the biggest challenges with the law and the service; we can’t serve them with our grant funds until they are declared a victim of human trafficking. But it may take a year to get all of the information, so that you know that they are. And in that process you can lose them.
The federal prosecutor indicated the same sentiment. For example, one respondent stated, I would say . . . well first of all, these cases come in one of two ways. We’ve got potential traffickers or we’ve got potential victims. It’s very rare that anyone is going to be completely honest about what’s going on, at first. So from a legal standpoint it can become very difficult because we almost have to assume that most victims are going to lie to us at first, because they’re scared, or they’re here illegally and they’ve been told they’re going to be deported, or something is going to happen to their family members somewhere else, or locally, or they think they’re going to be prosecuted as a co-conspirator. So there’s all kinds of motivations for them to lie, and that, of course, creates legal issues for me down the line; because if I have to put somebody on the stand who has made a prior inconsistent statement, then that makes them ripe for fertile cross examination, “well you had a chance to tell your story, and you lied didn’t you?” A defense lawyer, you know, might say, and that’s perfectly legitimate cross-examination, but, I of course should be able to explain through my witnesses through an expert why they might not be honest.
A legal services advocate also stated the importance of law enforcement listing to victims, and giving them time to tell their story: For the most part, I think all of our clients have been willing to talk to law enforcement. Some people are, they have to get to a point psychologically where they can even talk about their experience. So I think that is a challenge that we see, but once they are able to talk about their experience and feel safe talking about it, I think our experience has been that folks are more than willing to talk to law enforcement. And the challenge was trying to get law enforcement to hear them.
Another social service provider indicated the significance of when investigators were not sufficiently in tune with victims’ needs: So if the investigation takes 18 months, we may get there, but if, I mean we’ve had some people, not anybody in this room, some investigators actually at the federal level. We had one investigator who no longer works trafficking cases, but this was somebody who, the moment there was an inconsistency, the statement was “oh well, they’re lying. It’s not human trafficking.” And we’re going- ewwwwegh . . . I don’t think so.
A police lieutenant stated the importance of educating investigators and officers about the reasons why survivors may change their stories, not tell their complete stories, add to their stories later, or offer inconsistent statements. Furthermore, in a focus group discussion, he indicated how important a survivor-defined approach is to identification and victim cooperation: But the trick is the education of those the guys [police] to recognize it more from a victim-centered approach as opposed to “she’s just a prostitute.” If you want her to cooperate or that person to cooperate, then I mean, you have to start right from the beginning and do it—start right.
He elaborated on how the presence of an advocate, or the image of a plainclothes cop as opposed to a uniformed officer, can impact victims’ willingness to disclose: Well, and its tagging on what you [social service provider] said about that perception of, and that’s why we are in plain clothes instead of that uniform thing hovering over her, you know, Big 250 lb. officer and “what’s your name? was it a man?” where if you sit back a little bit and have a friend there or an advocate sitting there, we just figured out over years and years and years, we get a little better response, little better approach and that kind of stuff.
Thus, victim testimony was sometimes a barrier or issue in prosecuting cases of trafficking. Police in this study, who were all in leadership positions, were working to address the issue through promoting a survivor-defined approach through police training and collaborating with advocates and social services.
Furthermore, the statute of limitations for trafficking cases was associated with issues of victim testimony. Time may pass between the time a survivor is able to escape and their willingness or ability to come forward to the justice system with information about trafficking. For example, a legal services attorney described a case in which the victim was impeded from coming forward until after the statute of limitations expired: I guess one of the challenges we have seen with a couple of these cases is that the victims may not come—if the victims are not identified by law enforcement, they may not come to us for years after the trafficking happened. It makes it a lot more difficult. We had one person that we worked with who had been trafficked, again by a family member, and was able to escape the situation but got into a domestic violence situation. And then wasn’t able to get to us until she escaped the domestic violence. And even when she came to us, she was still dealing with that because she had children with the abuser. So it was tough, and we tried to work with FBI on it. They said that they couldn’t prosecute because so much time had passed and she had initially gone through another state and all of the evidence would have been in that state, and so much time had passed that they couldn’t gather evidence about it. They didn’t know where he was. I mean that’s a big problem, is that it takes time before the victim feels safe to talk about what happened to him or her.
Other legal services attorneys described the statute of limitations as a barrier to prosecuting sex trafficking cases as well. In Missouri, the statute of limitations for a non-minor is 10 years, although there is no statute of limitations if the trafficking occurred when the survivor was a minor.
Discussion
The findings in this Midwestern City both paralleled and differed from the extant research examining challenges to identification and prosecution of sex trafficking. First, the research findings related to identification—reporting issues, Internet solicitation, interstate movement, and hidden trafficking venues—generally paralleled findings largely representing cities in southern/U.S. Border States, indicating that such dynamics of trafficking are not only southern/border issues but are a part of trafficking enterprises in the Midwest United States as well (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Clawson, Dutch, & Cummings, 2006; Heil, 2012; Reid, 2010; Schauer & Wheaton, 2006; Smith, 2008; Ugarte et al., 2003). Moreover, the present study suggested that both Internet solicitation and interstate movement may be of particular concern warranting further examination in the Midwest, as the few studies that do examine the Midwest also find these dynamics (Smith et al., 2009; Williamson & Prior, 2009). Furthermore, the current study expanded upon the extant research related to police misreporting trafficking as co-occurring crimes emphasizing rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence as areas in need of further investigation. In addition, the findings expand upon settings trafficking may be identified in. Second, the findings supported and expanded the limited body of work examining prosecution in trafficking cases, including conflicting interests with ICE, challenges associated with victims’ testimony, the need for victim-centric approaches to prosecution, uncovering problems with the statute of limitations, and delineating challenges gathering sufficient evidence from local law enforcement. These themes are detailed in the following subsections.
Trafficking Techniques and Identification
Consistent with prior research, the current study found traffickers used indoor venues, Internet solicitation, interstate movement, and coercion to keep victims hidden (Albanese, 2007; Busch-Armendariz et al., 2009; Ekberg, 2004; Kotrla, 2010). Findings in the present study indicated that victims were not taking part in street prostitution; rather, victims met with clients largely in indoor situations—in hotels, trucks, and private parties—and were often advertised on the Internet. As sex trafficking is not as openly conducted, it is difficult to identify. At the same time, police leadership noted that prostitution was not typically investigated for the possibility of sex trafficking, impeding potential identification of trafficking among street prostitutes as well. Thus, while indoor trafficking is difficult to identify because it is relatively hidden, trafficking occurring more openly, such as in street prostitution, may be unidentified due to lack of investigation and reporting. Further research is needed to examine sex trafficking co-occurring with prostitution in St. Louis and in other Midwestern cities. 2
Traffickers’ use of Internet advertisements as a means for soliciting clients was found in the present research. This parallels prior research finding use of the Internet as a trafficking tool (Ekberg, 2004; Farrell et al., 2012; Hodge, 2008; Hughes, 2000; Kotrla, 2010; Kunze, 2010; Smith, 2008). For example, Reid (2010) stated in the southern United States that trafficking occurred primarily indoors, facilitated by the Internet. Smith et al. (2009) found in examining 10 U.S. cities, that all of them evidenced trafficking on the Internet. Williamson and Prior (2009) also found that victims in Ohio were commonly advertised on the Internet. The results of the current study support such work, and contribute to the small but growing body of work on trafficking in the Midwest (Raphael et al., 2010; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). As the current study and a study in Ohio show the Internet as a common means for trafficking, this suggests Internet solicitation may potentially be of particular concern in the Midwest.
Furthermore, the current study found interstate movement was used by traffickers throughout the Midwest to avoid identification. If sex trafficking victims are constantly being moved, it makes identification difficult. Williamson and Prior (2009) found use of interstate circuits in the Midwest as well. As the current study also found this trend, it adds to the growing literature in the technique of using interstate circuits, and suggests this technique may potentially reflect a pattern in the Midwest (Smith et al., 2009; Williamson & Prior, 2009). This could have implications for interstate and highway patrols in terms of training related to identification; more research is needed in this area.
While the extant academic literature finds truck stops, strip clubs, and make-shift brothels are venues for trafficking, such research does not emphasize the role of hotels or private parties in concealing trafficking. The available literature in this area largely comes from practitioners, local officials, and media reports. For example, Aslanian (2013) stated, “According to the Minneapolis police, all but one of the child sex trafficking cases charged in Minneapolis in 2012 involved the use of hotels, and those hotels helped provide evidence for conviction.” Furthermore, the organization End Child Prostitution and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes emphasizes the role of hotels in the sex trafficking of children, and conducts trainings for hotels to identify potential trafficking situations (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes [ECPAT], 2013). Research indicating private parties as sites for sex trafficking is not generally reported in prior research, and warrants additional examination. Further research in this area is needed to develop understandings of the roles of venues, such as hotels and private parties, in order to develop protocols to identify, report, and investigate trafficking situations in such settings.
Defining Trafficking and Misreporting
In addition to identifying victims, police must be able to differentiate between cases such as rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, immigration, prostitution, and sex trafficking cases. In particular, police may need to further investigate such crimes to determine if trafficking is co-occurring, as the current study suggests sex trafficking cases may be reported and consequently prosecuted as another crime. In fact, the findings of the current study implicated co-occurrence of crimes and failure to investigate as a potentially significant barrier to identification and misrepresentation in reporting. Such findings both support and expand prior research. For example, in an National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-sponsored study, Clawson, Dutch, and Cummings (2006) found that nearly a third of trafficking cases were identified in response to calls for other co-occurring crimes or by happenstance. Furthermore, Bales and Lize (2005) noted, “Trafficking victims often have contact with local law enforcement authorities, but because local law enforcement agents lack sufficient training, they fail to notice the victims or take appropriate action to bring them to safety.” Prior research finds misidentifying and misreporting trafficking as illegal immigration and prostitution, but the current academic discourse does not generally focus on domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault as crimes trafficking may be misreported as (Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Raphael et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Prior research indicates the gap in identification of trafficking co-occurring with domestic violence may be of concern, as trafficking could be seen as an extension of domestic violence (Kennedy et al., 2007; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Reid, 2010). For example, Raphael and Shapiro (2004) found 20% of 222 prostituted women in Chicago were pimped by boyfriends. Furthermore, Kennedy et al. (2007), found 16% of 54 trafficking victims were pimped out by boyfriends or those they had an emotional bond with. While prior research uncovers the relationship between domestic violence and prostitution or trafficking, the academic discourse does not generally examine this dynamic in the context of police misreporting, or failing to further investigate such cases to identify sex trafficking victimization. There currently exists a gap in the research literature related to cases identified and reported as rape or sexual assault cases that may also involve trafficking, and according to respondents in this study, this is particularly the case with rape or sexual assault involving prostitutes. In fact, in this study, various actors in the justice system and social services indicated police training in identifying trafficking alongside a co-occurring crime as a priority area in need of improvement.
Prosecutorial Challenges
There were multiple challenges related to the prosecution of sex trafficking, beginning with identification of such cases, and occurring throughout the prosecution process. Related to the section above, police misreporting led to prosecuting on a charge other than trafficking. The findings in this study indicated cases were prosecuted as immigration and prostitution cases as opposed to trafficking cases, and they also were being prosecuted as rape or other sex crimes resulting in a “leaky pipeline” of “missing” sex trafficking cases. Furthermore, when such misreporting occurs, there is a failure of local law enforcement to gather necessary evidence. If trafficking is not the crime they are investigating, the collection of evidence necessary to prove force, fraud, and coercion is limited. This supports the work of Farrell et al. (2012), who indicated that in order to gain a successful prosecution, these three elements must be proven, and evidence from the time of initial identification and reporting by law enforcement is important and can present challenges to prosecution.
Only one study specifically examines the role of U.S. ICE in its relationship to prosecuted cases of sex trafficking. Hepburn and Simon (2010) found that the goals of U.S. ICE at times conflicted with those of TVPA. They found that in one case, ICE deported 23 trafficking victims, problematizing federal prosecution of a trafficking case through loss of key witnesses—the victims. The present study supports Hepburn and Simon’s research findings, also suggesting deportation of traffickers by ICE as an impediment to prosecution.
Furthermore, the current study supports and adds to the limited body of research on victim reporting and testimony in sex trafficking cases. The findings were similar to those of other authors, in that victims may be unwilling to report their victimization and experiences to authorities (Adams, 2011; Heil, 2012; Hopper, 2004; Smith et al., 2009; Ugarte et al., 2003). The current study supports this research, and also contributes to the research in finding such dynamics were also present in a Midwestern city. The findings in this article not only implicate reluctance to disclose victimization due to fear of legal sanctions, deportation, and victim trauma but also found that the statute of limitations had an impact on victim testimony. The emotional state of victims may present a challenge to their ability to disclose, and to disclose a complete and consistent overview of their experiences as well. The current study also emphasized the importance of victim-centric approaches to law enforcement and prosecution, and the need for expanded advocacy. In addition, findings indicated that both prosecutors and victims may seek an easier charge, which is not generally presented in prior research. Yet, such findings complement the small but growing body of work in the area of prosecutorial challenges (see Farrell et al., 2012). The research findings highlight specific challenges that underscore the number of prosecuted cases of trafficking, and offer implications for both identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases, and better assisting and supporting survivors.
Implications
Social Service Provider Training
Training of social service providers in the identification of sex trafficking with co-occurring crimes is justified by the research findings. First, domestic violence service providers should be informed and trained in identifying sex trafficking that may co-occur with domestic violence. The research relating domestic violence to sex trafficking is limited; however, a body of work examines situations in which forced or coerced prostitution may be an extension of domestic violence (Raphael et al., 2010; Reid, 2011). This link should be labeled as trafficking because of the coercive nature of prostitution in such circumstances, consistent with TVPA. Macy and Graham (2012) suggested domestic violence service providers should receive training in order to better identify and handle trafficking cases, as trafficking victims may seek out domestic violence shelters. The current study supports this notion, and also suggests that it is important for those working with domestic violence to understand the legal definitions of trafficking and the labeling of the domestic violence–prostitution link as sex trafficking. Advocates and social workers who work with survivors of domestic violence in shelters, outreach, transitional housing, health care, police departments, and the courts should receive this training. Advocates and social workers could then potentially recommend a trafficking charge, or potentially a T or U visa, as a tool to assist the survivors they work with if they determined it served the best interests of their clients.
Individuals working in sexual assault and rape crisis centers, as well as those in health care settings, should receive training in identifying sex trafficking co-occurring with rape or sexual assault, particularly in situations where the victim is involved in prostitution or the sex industry, as they may be at higher risk of being involved in a trafficking situation, according to respondents in this study (also see Macy & Graham, 2012). Education and training involving trafficking co-occurring with domestic violence, rape, or sexual assault is something that could be easily added to State Coalition training, such as the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, as well as local coalitions and individual organizations’ education and training sessions. When cases are identified as sex trafficking cases, they will be more likely to be prosecuted and handled as sex trafficking cases, and victims can access the services they may need.
Police Training
If the justice system does not work to identify sex trafficking, then the system fails to provide recourse to sex trafficking survivors for their victimization. Ugarte et al. (2003) delineated that the current structure of U.S. trafficking laws largely places responsibility upon victims to come forward and to prove that their cases involve trafficking. Given survivors’ reluctance to disclose to authorities, police training is important in identifying and responding to such cases. Ekberg (2004) noted, “The effective enforcement of the Law is ultimately determined by the attitude of the leadership within the local police forces, as well as that of the individual police officer.” In Florida, Reid (2010) also found that training of officers impacted identification of trafficking, and the number of leads for investigations increased. Importantly, the present research indicates that police investigations should also allow for the possibility of trafficking co-occurring with domestic violence, prostitution, rape and sexual assault, and illegal immigration. Police awareness of this issue and the development of investigative procedures may facilitate identification of trafficking in such cases. If police investigate domestic violence, rape, prostitution, and sexual assault in more depth, according to participants in this study, they are more likely to identify trafficking situations.
Cross-Training
Some researchers suggest cross-training in one another’s areas to improve outcomes for victims in community-based approaches (Macy, Giattina, Parish, & Crosby, 2010; Nichols, 2011; Zweig & Burt, 2007). For example, Zweig and Burt (2007) found that when law enforcement took part in cross-training in collaboration with domestic violence victim advocates, the result was increased arrest of perpetrators, better evidence collection, and more convictions. Konradi (2007, p. 178) found cross-training with rape crisis centers, prosecutors, and police assisted partners in reaching their goals, and also resulted in processes and practices that benefitted victims. While these examples involve cross-training in domestic violence and rape cases, respectively, the current study suggests cross-training in sex trafficking cases as well. For example, if ICE participated in trainings with prosecutors, attorneys, and advocates, they may better understand the importance of keeping key witnesses and protecting victims as opposed to enforcing illegal immigration. Moreover, collaboration between local police, state attorneys, and federal prosecutors could lead to better evidence collection and reporting practices. Similarly, police leadership in this study, who collaborated with advocates and social service providers, were better educated in victim-centric approaches. This supports the idea of a community-based response structure partnering advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement. In fact, respondents in the present research indicated that cases working collaboratively with community partners aided in both prosecution and identification of sex trafficking victims. In addition, partnering various stakeholders in the justice system and social services was described as beneficial, and in need of expansion.
The Survivor-Centered Approach
The results of this study indicate that a survivor-centered approach beginning with identification and investigation can mutually benefit victims, law enforcement, and prosecution endeavors. A finding of this study suggests that this approach can benefit prosecution while simultaneously helping victims become less fearful of law enforcement, and addressing their needs. Survivor-defined approaches include providing resources and information to support victims’ needs, emphasizing their safety and general sense of well-being, and valuing survivor’s input through collaborative decision making (Konradi, 2007; Kulkarni, Bell & Rhodes, 2012; Nichols, 2013a, 2013b). A growing body of work finds survivor-defined approaches are successful in the prosecution process with domestic violence and rape cases (Bennett & Goodman, 2010; Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Konradi, 2007; Martin, 2005; Nichols, 2011, 2013a, 2013b). Such approaches may hold positive outcomes in trafficking cases as well. There is a very limited body of work emphasizing such approaches with trafficking victims. For example, Smith et al. (2009) noted the importance of providing resources for victims, which benefitted both victims as well as prosecution endeavors. Reid (2010) also noted victims were often not willing to testify against their traffickers, largely due to lack of victim protection and victim-centered processes. Similarly, Reid related a lack of victim-centered protocols to low prosecution rates in the southern United States. Furthermore, Smith et al. (2009) indicated that victim-centered policies, including resources, were central to victim cooperation in prosecuted trafficking cases. The current study adds to this growing body of work, finding that the presence of an advocate, as well as a plainclothes cop, can allow victims to feel more comfortable in reporting their victimization and participating in an investigation. This suggests that expansion of advocacy and social services in trafficking situations, beginning with an investigation, is warranted. Advocacy throughout the prosecution process is also recommended, as respondents in the present study indicated that survivors may be more cooperative in prosecuting sex trafficking cases when survivor-centered approaches are used, which can simultaneously benefit both victims and prosecutorial efforts. More research is needed to understand the role of survivors’ input and empowerment in the prosecution process, and its impact on outcomes.
Policy Implications
Moreover, given the trauma that victims undergo due to the psychological and physical abuses associated with their trafficking experiences—and their concerns about safety, deportation, and other issues—getting the confidence to come forward with their experiences as sex trafficking victims may not manifest until years after escape. Thus, the statute of limitations on sex trafficking cases should be reconsidered as well to support victim-centered policy. Currently, in Missouri, there is no statute of limitations if the incident occurred when the victim was a child, but those who were victimized over the age of 18 years are negatively impacted by the statute of limitations.
In the present study, prosecution was undermined at times by ICE, who respondents indicated may deport perpetrators with no other legal consequences. Higher level policy and protocols are needed to address issues that occur when jurisdictions overlap, to support prosecution, to protect victims, and to provide victims with recourse through the justice system. Prosecution of sex trafficking should supersede deportation of traffickers, as well as victims, due to illegal immigration.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
The authors wish to note that the cases represented in this study reflect the experiences of individuals who worked with sex trafficking victims who were either identified by social service providers or members of the justice system, or who sought assistance. Those who receive assistance may not represent the general population of trafficked victims. Furthermore, issues that remain contentious sources of debate, such as victims’ relative agency and victimization, were not examined in this study, as the authors wished to explicitly examine identification and prosecution challenges from the perspective of anti-trafficking stakeholders (Ekberg, 2004; Hughes, 2007; Liu, 2012; Weitzer, 2010). In addition, individuals who are first-responders to identifying trafficking—such as advocates and social workers in child protective services, domestic violence services, rape crisis centers, health care settings, those providing services to prostitutes, as well as police officers on-the-ground were not included in the study. The current research suggests examining the practices of such groups is an important area in need of further research. Furthermore, sex trafficking victims may feel forced into testifying against their traffickers in exchange for social and legal services (e.g., visas, dropping of prostitution charges, etc.). There may be a real element of legal coercion and exploitation that survivors experience that warrants further examination. Moreover, the goal of victims may not be prosecution. Further research is needed to examine survivors' perceptions and experiences in the prosecution process.
The current study examines one Midwestern city, thus the research findings may not represent dynamics of identification and prosecution in other cities. The results of this study aimed to contribute to the knowledge base on identification and prosecution in the Midwest United States; results may inform policy and practice in other areas with similar contextual concerns and dynamics.
Conclusion
This study worked to add to the current body of knowledge examining challenges to identification and prosecution of sex trafficking, and to address a regional gap in the literature by focusing on a Midwestern U.S. city. The research findings highlighted specific challenges that underscore the number of identified and prosecuted cases of sex trafficking, and offered recommendations for both identification and prosecution among social service providers and in the criminal justice system. The current study provided replication of prior research indicating that patterns of Internet solicitation, interstate movement, and indoor prostitution are not just issues in southern and/or Border States in the U.S. but are also found in the Midwest, adding to the emerging body of work examining sex trafficking in the Midwest (Raphael et al., 2010; Raphael & Shapiro, 2004; Williamson & Prior, 2009; J. Wilson & Dalton, 2008). The present study also highlighted issues with police investigation and reporting involving prostitution, domestic violence, illegal immigration, and rape and sexual assault. Furthermore, the importance of victim-centered policy and protocols, such as in the case of the statute of limitations, overlapping jurisdictions, and access to advocacy were also emphasized. The purpose of this study was not to lay numerical claims to prevalence of trafficking in the St. Louis area but to examine and reveal barriers to prosecution and challenges to identification in a Midwestern City that impact the number of reported and prosecuted cases of sex trafficking.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.