Detention Experiences of Commercial Sexual Exploitation Survivors

Abstract

Commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) harms youth around the globe. In the United States, most states manage CSEC victims through the juvenile justice system. Once the youth enter the system, little is known about how being detained for prostitution and solicitation charges impacts them. This study explores how CSEC survivors in Nevada experience detention through a qualitative content analysis of 36 interviews with formerly detained young women. This article offers pivotal findings revealing patterns of stigmatization, turning points, obstacles, and relational breakthroughs while in detention. Treatment suggestions, proposed by the interviewees themselves, are also provided.

Keywords

CSEC youth juvenile detention juvenile justice system

The proportion of girls represented in the juvenile justice system is rapidly growing. While there has been a brief decline in juvenile girls’ detention rates since 2015 (Sickmund et al., 2019), there was a near 50% increase (20%–29%) in girls’ arrests from 1992 to 2012 (Sherman & Balck, 2015). The delinquent girls are typically incarcerated for nonviolent offenses like truancy, status offenses, or victimization through prostitution (Bond-Maupin et al., 2002; Hubbard & Matthews, 2008; Pasko, 2010, 2017; Vitopoulos et al., 2012; Watson & Edelman, 2012). For adults, prostitution is the practice of engaging in sexual relations for monetary or property gain (Kamruzzaman & Hakim, 2016); however, under federal trafficking statutes, juveniles are not legally capable of consenting to the sale of sex even in states where adult prostitution is legalized. Instead of pursuing justice and safety for commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC), many survivors are re-victimized by the system that returns them to their hostile living environments or detains them (e.g., Chesney-Lind, 1986; Irwin et al., 2018).

Nevada is a unique place to research trafficking, as some rural counties have legalized adult prostitution, but it remains prohibited in the counties where Las Vegas and Reno are located. Nonetheless, the illegal sexual exploitation of children occurs statewide and is exacerbated by these prolific adult industries and high demand (The Human Trafficking Initiative, 2018). Research focusing on sex trafficking and trafficking of children is present and ever-evolving in academia. It is victims’ consequent experiences in detention that are largely not discussed in the literature, and, as such, little is known about the outcomes of the incarceration of this vulnerable population.

The qualitative data of the current study provide findings regarding the detention experiences and programming suggestions of 36 commercially sexually exploited survivors,¹ who are currently young women living back in the community. While not all of these young women were detained solely for prostitution or soliciting as juveniles, they were all commercially sexually exploited during adolescence. These findings can, in turn, inform researchers and practitioners of the most beneficial policy implications, as well as of other specificities of this population.

Literature Review

Overview of Detention

Detention centers serve as holding centers for juveniles who pose a risk to the community or are at-risk of failing to appear for court hearings (Furdella & Puzzanchera, 2015). They also serve as short-term facilities for juveniles after being sentenced, rather than being sentenced to jail or long-term juvenile correctional facilities (Furdella & Puzzanchera, 2015; Mathur et al., 2018). Hence, the purpose of detention includes pretrial holds, protecting the community from potentially dangerous offenders, providing diagnoses for at-risk and mentally ill youth, and rehabilitative or punitive purposes (Furdella & Puzzanchera, 2015; Sullivan, 2018; Wordes & Jones, 1998). Detentions can house a wide variety of juvenile crimes, from violent crimes to status crimes (e.g., truancy; Justia, 2018; Wordes & Jones, 1998).

In 2015, 48,000 juveniles were detained in the United States (Sullivan, 2018). Studies have found that a large number of juveniles recidivate after detention, with estimates ranging from 37% to 50%–80% of released juveniles reoffending (Herrman & Sexton, 2017; White et al., 2016). Rather than detention being collectively effective or ineffective, research has shown that success depends on situational factors of individual facilities, such as what services are offered (Guerette et al., 2016). Detention facilities with educational, vocational, personal, and interpersonal skill-building opportunities, as well as gender-responsive practices, have been typically more successful at preventing recidivism than detention facilities that did not provide these opportunities (Mathur et al., 2018; Moore et al., 2013; Sullivan, 2018). Specifically, the use of vocational and educational programs in juvenile detention reduced recidivism by 40% and lowered the annual nationwide correctional costs by $2 million (Sullivan, 2018). Juveniles in detention also voiced needing help with building positive interactions, self-motivational skills, and interpersonal support to prevent recidivism (Herrman & Sexton, 2017).

Girls in Detention

Previous research on girls in detention has suggested that they have different treatment needs than boys in detention, such as having higher rates of mental health issues, more severe mental health issues, and histories of victimization (Cauffman, 2008; Jones et al., 2014; Simkins & Katz, 2002; Trupin et al., 2002). Regarding victimization histories, Saar and colleagues (2015) reported that 31% of the girls in detention in their sample have been sexually victimized.

As a result of their complex background and issues, research has found that many practitioners see girls as needy, manipulative, or even whiny (e.g., Bond-Maupin et al., 2002; Galardi & Settersten, 2018; Hipwell & Loeber, 2006; Pasko, 2017). For example, Acoca (1998) noted how one of the detained girls reported feeling anxious and complaining about staying in her cell by herself at night, as that was an uncommon occurrence in her culture. Similar issues may remain unaddressed depending on an agency’s policy, further intensifying the detainees’ distress. Perhaps due to the staff’s perceptions of this population that has been coupled with a misunderstanding of the girls’ background, justice-involved girls reported abuse by staff, including name-calling, blaming, intimidation, isolation, and physical and sexual abuse (Acoca, 1998; Galardi & Settersten, 2018).

Despite the negative attitudes of the staff and negative experiences of justice-involved girls, system-impacted adult women noted that correctional facilities have helped with their desistance² (Cobbina, 2010). Women in correctional facilities expressed that healthy social networks, particularly those with their parole officers, were beneficial to them. Notably, being able to trust their parole officer allowed them to have someone to discuss issues with and learn how to solve them appropriately (Cobbina, 2010). This parallels Oselin’s (2014) discussion of the fictive family, where correctional staff posed as a secondary family for prostituted women, creating almost a parent-child relationship. This relationship then promoted an environment that helped women leave the sex industry (Oselin, 2014). As such, time away from negative social relationships while in correctional facilities, paired with access to various services, served as turning points for many system-impacted women (Bui & Morash, 2010). Although system-impacted women have highlighted both failures and successes of the system, research that investigates whether the same outcomes can be observed in detained girls is lacking.

CSEC Victims in Juvenile Detention

Approximately 54% victims of sex trafficking are minors (Banks & Kyckelhahn, 2011), making them victims of commercial sexual exploitation defined as “sexual abuse by an adult and remuneration in cash or kind to the child or a third person or persons” (Desai, 2010, p. 364). Girls are victims of CSEC more frequently than boys—making up 95% of the population (Development Services Group, 2014). The victims consist primarily of vulnerable populations—runaways, physical and sexual abuse victims, and those with mental illnesses (Musto, 2013). Once exploited, many CSEC victims also become trauma bonded to their trafficker and are constantly moved around to different locations and venues (Nichols & Heil, 2015). Despite knowledge on the demographics of CSEC victims, little is known on how many are in detention. One study on detained girls in Nevada found that 36% of those interviewed (n = 35) have been commercially sexually exploited (Kennedy et al., 2018).

While putting children in detention may be for the purpose of disrupting their sexual exploitation, the experiences of CSEC girls in juvenile detention do not always meet these goals of assistance, protection, and safety. When safety is considered, the focus is on reigning in problematic behaviors, rather than seeking out ways to protect them from harm (i.e., judicial paternalism; Chesney-Lind, 1977; Spivak et al., 2014). In contrast, first, the majority of CSEC victims are being held at places with little regard for their gendered risks and needs (Hipwell & Loeber, 2006). Second, they are being labeled as criminals for selling sex, despite their age of entry being below the age to even consent to sexual acts (Cimino, 2018). Finally, they are commonly marginalized based on their ethnic or racial background (Cimino, 2018). Consequently, it is apparent that this population’s experience is largely affected by their exploitation history.

Cognitive Transformations

Rather than focusing on purely external forces that lead individuals to end their criminal involvement, the theory of cognitive transformation emphasizes individual agency and internal shifts (Giordano et al., 2002; Tebes et al., 2004). An individual’s environment does play a role in one’s desistance; however, Giordano and colleagues (2002) argued that the four types of cognitive transformations—openness to change, exposure to “hooks for change”/turning points, envisioning “replacement self,” and undesirability of criminal lifestyle—take precedence. Nevertheless, the “hooks for change” or turning points may not always be positive events. On the contrary, Tebes and colleagues (2004) specified that turning points have oftentimes been severely negative experiences—such as mental illness, substance abuse, violent death of a family member, or sudden illness onset—which have been converted into productive outcomes.

The concept of cognitive transformations has been previously applied to prostituted adult women in different stages of selling sex (Oselin, 2010; Sanders, 2007). Adverse experiences, described by Tebes and colleagues (2004), reappeared in Oselin’s (2010) study. Turning points are most commonly experienced in the form of arrest and detention, hospitalization, having children, and meeting service providers. Incarceration, paired with appropriate services, can serve as a turning point supporting desistance from crime for many adult women, as it helps them to take on new roles or labels (Oselin, 2010). As the aforementioned internal and external shifts aid pro-social lifestyle adoption of adult prostituted women (Oselin, 2010), the current study sought to examine whether these findings and this theoretical framework can be applied to explain how CSEC survivors experience detention.

Methods

Data for the current study came from Project STARTE (Sex Trafficking and Readiness to Exit, the “parent study”), a mixed method study that sought to uncover the facilitators, barriers, and readiness to change for victims exiting commercial sexual exploitation (DOJ/NIJ: 2015-VF-GX-0064). The parent study was guided by constructivist principles, which posit that meaning is subjectively created as people interact with the world (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Members of the research team had prior research experience interviewing sexually exploited adults and minors, which created trust and rapport between interviewers and participants. Many of the interviews were conducted by a CSEC survivor with a graduate degree specializing in mental health treatment. Rapport was further established through CSEC service providers who helped recruit potential participants. These methods were aligned with feminist research methods (Westervelt & Cook, 2007). This alignment was achieved by utilizing a collaborative approach, ethical considerations, and a focus on marginalization. A collaborative approach allowed participants to describe their experiences in their own words and had the potential to empower severely marginalized groups, such as the group in this study. Women in our sample predominantly belonged to a racial minority (only two respondents, included in the final sample, identified as strictly White/Caucasian). Ultimately, this approach allowed the researcher to become a listener that provides an outlet for the survivor’s story. A university-level Institutional Review Board (IRB) and federal-level Human Subjects Protection Office (HSPO) approved all procedures.

Procedures in the Parent Study

Participants in the parent study came from two metropolitan areas of Nevada, where prostitution is illegal. Children are never able to legally sell sex, even in the rural counties where adult prostitution is legal in the state. A specialty juvenile justice court and local non-profit agencies serving CSEC youth helped recruit participants for the study via flyers and through social media.

Eligible participants were between 18 and 24 years old, and self-reported experiencing commercial sexual exploitation prior to age 18. After securing informed consent, participants were interviewed (45–90 min) in private rooms at the service agencies by trained graduate- or Ph.D.-level researchers. Interviews were anonymous, and each participant was given a pseudonym³ in order to protect their identity. In the qualitative portion of the parent study, a total of 41 participants were interviewed.⁴

The audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews followed a guide that had participants describe (a) their life prior to, (b) during, and (c) after sexual exploitation, with specific probes on their interaction with law enforcement (among other topics). Since questions of a sensitive nature were asked, crisis mitigation services were available on premises, in a case of need. Furthermore, upon the conclusion of the interview, the participants were debriefed by being offered referrals for counseling services. Participants received a $40 gift card for their time.

The Current Study

While there is arguably some knowledge on prostituted adult women and their experiences in the justice system, there are still relatively few studies on CSEC girls’ experiences with the system. Detention is intended to deter crime, give those who are incarcerated a time to reflect, and provide appropriate programming/rehabilitation. However, how CSEC victims react to detention and how they propose that the system could be changed are under-researched areas.

This article’s main objective was to reveal themes and patterns of how victims of CSEC experience juvenile detention by analyzing their subsequent recollections about the internal and external changes in their lives, and occurrences they encountered during their justice involvement. We highlight both positive and negative transformations to provide a holistic view of the effect of detention, from the perspective of the survivor. This article also offers recommendations for treatment that were voiced by the interviewees.

The current study analyzed interview data from participants who were detained in a juvenile facility and commercially sexually exploited as children. A total of 36 cases were selected for inclusion in the current study, as they fulfilled the sole inclusion criterion, which was reporting a stay in juvenile detention. The participants were predominantly African-American/Black (n = 19, 53%),⁵ started being commercially sexually exploited at an average age of 15, and were arrested for a variety of charges, mostly for running away and other status offenses. Only 8 of the young women were arrested solely for prostitution charges when they were adolescents (24%).⁶

Data Analysis

The analytic strategy for this study was qualitative content analysis (Cho & Lee, 2014). Specifically, the research team began the inquiry by creating the research questions. An inductive approach was employed due to the general lack of knowledge regarding the correctional experiences of youth who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation. The use of an inductive approach allowed for themes to arise directly from patterns within the data, rather than from preconceived notions. Interview transcripts were chosen as the unit of analysis, and the first stage open coding ensued. Thirty-six transcripts of respondents who experienced detention were coded by the first author, and memos were written to strengthen the analysis (Maxwell, 2013). The initial codes related to the negative and positive experiences in the detention itself, along with negative and positive experiences with people they encountered during their detainment.

During the second stage of coding, the first author revised and refined the initial codes. This involved an additional investigation of all analyzed transcripts to contrast the codes and arrive at definite overarching themes present in the data. Ultimately, four themes and two subthemes emerged: (1) labeling and stigmatization, (2) turning points in detention, (3) transformations in perceptions on healthy relationships, including two subthemes regarding relationships with peers and adults, and (4) policy recommendations.

In order to provide rigorous and trustworthy results, collaboration ensued to verify the credibility of the study’s claims—the first two authors read the interview memos, discussed them, and agreed upon the codes and the themes (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). In addition, as recommended by Cho and Lee (2014), “representative quotations” (p. 14) are provided below to verify the credibility of the study’s claims. All quotes are verbatim.

Findings

Experiencing Labeling and Stigmatization in Detention

Themes revealing two types of labeling and stigmatization (external and internal) were detected in the sample. Regarding external stigmatization, Logandale feared being “stuck in prostitution forever” once it was on her record. For her, having a prostitution charge and arrest had the effect of making her feel as if she had limited opportunities or no other options but to sell/trade sex: “I feel like once you go to jail for prostitution, people label you as a ho or a hooker, whatever, so I felt like that was my only way of getting money, being able to get money.” The stigmatization that came with the said record can negatively affect one’s self-esteem. Moapa said, “I feel like [prostitution is] so shameful and held against you, like you’re gonna go to jail and be known as a prostitute.” For some other participants, like Alamo, the central concern about being arrested for prostitution was others finding out about the charges: “[. . .] I was also scared of vice, running into police, getting locked up for prostitution, and people finding out about it.” Alamo articulating that she was scared of people finding out supported the notion of stigmatization, as she clearly distinguished between the fear of apprehension and the fear of being exposed as someone who sells sex. Subsequently, it appeared that sexual exploitation did, indeed, pose as a heavy label for these young women, who felt shameful for being labeled as prostitutes or known for selling sex. Furthermore, this stigma reinforced the severe marginalization of this population.

We found that the survivors assigned certain labels to themselves and other detainees. However, the patterns of these labels changed depending on the charges that the girls were detained for. For example, in Austin’s case, she referred to detainees, who were charged with relatively non-serious offenses, as “kids,” further demonstrating the aversion towards criminalization of juveniles detained for status crimes by calling such charges “stupid.” On the other hand, when the participants addressed their sexual exploitation, they referred to themselves as “victims.” This term was being commonly used to highlight the involuntariness of “the life”.⁷ For example, Jackpot highlighted the contradiction in criminalizing the victims. She said, “somebody put me in a predicament that I had no control over,” referring to being forced to sell sex, yet, “I’m spending the night in juvie.” While they generally avoided negative terms, such as “prostitute,” or terms that are supposed to be empowering to this population, such as “survivor,” the participants frequently referred to themselves as “victims” to convey the involuntariness of their involvement. Overall, being detained for selling sex or soliciting carried an especially stigmatizing connotation that was not present when the detainees were in custody for other charges. The participants candidly articulated worries about their exploitation being exposed, and used separate terminology when referring to their sexual exploitation and their status offenses (i.e., “victims” versus “kids”).

Experiencing Turning Points in Detention

Several young women in our sample described detention as a turning point for the break from “the life” during their exploitation. This turning point was a result of both internal and external forces; the impact of external circumstances was apparent in Pyramid Lake’s recollections. For the first few months that Pyramid Lake was in detention she “hated it,” particularly the “childish” people and the “stupid” rules, but then reported: “Then I started seeing how it was changin’ me. The way I am now is the complete opposite the way I was before.” Here, Pyramid Lake clearly distinguished her state before and after detention, and signaled that there is a break that happens when one is incarcerated. She further transferred the responsibility for her change to the detention (“it was changin’ me”) rather than recognizing her own agency. Similarly, another participant, Stagecoach, asserted that she was “in the stage of changing,” also somewhat disregarding her own initiative. Nonetheless, her voice became active when speaking of not wanting to change and opening up: “Sometimes I’d talk to them or let ‘em know a little bit about everything, and then sometimes I just told ‘em I don’t wanna talk.” Remarks like these highlighted the respondents’ recognition of their internal processes.

Turning points were not possible without one’s own agency and willingness, but it was suggested based on the participants’ responses that detention served as a motivator behind this cognitive transformation.

That place, literally, it helped me realize a lot of stuff about myself, and about life, and about how people should go about things, and how I should go about my future and my goals, and how I want to aspire to be something different than what I used to be, and how I wanna change so bad, but I was afraid of the change ‘cause I wasn’t used to change. That place really helped me. (Pyramid Lake)

Articulating that it was “that place [the detention]” that helped Pyramid Lake reconsider her life, indicated that she viewed it as facilitating a subsequent positive change. This assertion was strengthened by the participant’s usage of words that emphasized the urgency of her realizations aided by her incarceration (e.g., noting that the detention “literally” helped her realize “a lot of stuff”, and wanting to change “so bad”). Detention then became broadly depicted as a relatively safe space to begin planning for activities outside of “the life,” and the time spent detained was described as a period when reflection was possible without the stress and hassles of selling sex.

Experiencing Relationship Breakthroughs in Detention

When in juvenile detention, the young women in our sample had to navigate a highly regulated environment alongside other juveniles and professional staff. Given the circumstances of being faced with constant interaction, their reflections often included changing thoughts on relationships. The participants not only talked about the behavior of people around them but also considered their own needs in relationships.

Relationships with adults

When speaking of adults while detained, the participants most often spoke of the staff they interacted with on a daily basis. The initial assessment of their work (i.e., good or bad) was followed by articulating how their needs could have been met in the interactions. Detention was, in some instances, considered to be somewhat of a home, and the staff became a “second family”; Austin noted that “the staff had known me since I was younger” and “it’s kinda like my second family, sadly.” Jean also conveyed this perception, by saying that “They (detention staff) just taught you how to do everything, really, like adult when you don’t have a mom or, like me, dropped outta school in the sixth grade and did nothin’ but the streets, never did nothin’ that was positive, never did nothin’ like that.” Discussing detention staff in terms of familial relationships arose as a theme deserving closer attention, as it spoke to some of the unmet needs endured in the respondents’ family life and other social relationships.

Feelings that conventionally accompany family life, such as love and care, were also present in some of the needs that the survivors voiced. Carlin, specifically, voiced her need for feeling like the staff cared about the survivors through making “them feel like their story matters,” and “making somebody feel like they’re wanted instead of unwanted.” The victims voiced several different methods through which the needed care could be shown. While Carlin articulated the need to feel that the survivors’ stories mattered and that rapport building occurred through talking “about anything,” other respondents, like Jean, mentioned listening to the detainees as a way of showing them interest and care: “They listened. They wanted to help. They wanted to help me. They wanted to listen there. They helped every little thing. They taught you structure. They taught you your boundaries.” These statements suggested that the staff can show care through verbal communication with the survivors, mainly through talking and listening.

Relationships with peers

The daily, formalized interactions with the detention staff were complimented by constant informal interactions with other detainees. These peers played an essential role in the CSEC survivors’ experiences in detention, as they can influence their subsequent behavior or attitudes. Searchlight described it in the following manner: “Then when we get to jail, we’re hoeing, yeah, that’s wrong, but then we learn how to do all this other stuff, and I get to jail and then I’m like I know how to take your credit card information.” CSEC victims highlighted that they were learning new criminal skills by being housed with other delinquent youth instead of being held solely with trafficking victims.

Peers and friends can be conducive to exiting “the life.” During exploitation, the survivors were typically only surrounded by pimps, sex buyers, or other CSEC. In detention, it was their peers who helped them form additional pro-social needs concerning friendships. The way other detainees were spoken of was dramatically different from how our respondents spoke of the staff, reflecting the distinction between formal and informal relationships. First, the participants spoke of other detainees only briefly and did not provide much detail. Second, rather than looking for more hierarchical family dynamics like in the case of the staff, they were looking for peer support, like in the case of Alamo:

Interviewer:

Did they talk about it or did you find resources when you were in jail to talk about how to get out or?

Interviewee:

Actually, it was more of an encouragement to do it (get out of prostitution), from the other girls. (Alamo)

Seeking peer support and resources from individuals in the same situation resulted in the survivors forming a bond. Nellis suggested that it was the desperation that accompanied the exploitation that ultimately brought the survivors together and helped them address their struggles: “Having the support from girls that have already been through that, and got out of that, and understand what it’s like to be in that situation, and what it’s like to wanna get out and not be able to get out.” In general, the young women reported gravitating towards other survivors, as they felt more comfortable with peers who have had similar experiences. Spending time with other survivors created a sense of unity among them, as there was a common understanding of the ins and outs of “the life.”

Survivors’ Policy Recommendations

The respondents themselves provided some invaluable recommendations for better treatment of the CSEC youth. According to the participants, detention was generally seen as an inappropriate place for the CSEC survivors. This was mainly because the respondents felt stigmatized, criminalized, and mistreated in the traditional juvenile justice system. The respondents longed for a place that lacked the traits of juvenile justice system, and was more of a cozy sanctuary reminiscent of home: Amargosa conveyed she would like “more places designated for those kind of like kids, like who have been exploited I feel like there should be programs for just that,” looking more “just like a home, a regular home.” This expressed need for a home-like environment coincided with a desire to be treated well by detention staff, as in both cases, the survivors voiced wanting to feel secure and cared for.

Aside from mentioning a home-like setting, Amargosa indicated that the programs or treatment should be specific for this population. It was previously noted that the exploited youth did not relate to non-CSEC detainees, and felt that some criminal learning may occur; hence, the survivors felt their preferred environment would be among other survivors. Gardnerville wished it “was more a group thing because it was always solo,” explaining: “I know there’s got to be other girls that used to do what I did and I was just like, ‘Why do they keep them away?’” Paralleling the characteristics of group activities, the survivors also envisioned mentorship programs that would offer unconditional support. Amargosa said she would have appreciated a program “like the Big Sister, Little Sister programs. Like that, or like (name of the service provider redacted), how I can just call her anytime of the day to talk to her.” As such, the respondents’ repeated suggestions for supportive services that would allow for sharing with others became some of the most salient themes regarding policy recommendations.

As some local systems may not currently allow for placement other than in detention, Austin recommended that “there should be more mental health treatment” available while the survivors are in custody, because “it’s very emotionally hard to be at the detention center, especially if it’s your first time.” This recommendation was not surprising, given the extent of trauma all CSEC victims experience.

To summarize, the respondents recommended limiting the use of detention, and probation and parole as the only options for the CSEC. Indeed, other options, such as residential facilities for trafficking victims, already exist in the US. Victims interviewed were aware of programs in other parts of the country and mentioned preferring residential facilities for CSEC survivors. Increased access to community-based service providers, who understand the challenges of leaving “the life” behind and seeking safety from their exploiters, was also recommended.

If the system is not equipped for placement other than detention, the respondents argued that there was a critical need for more resources and programming in juvenile detention, especially related to mental health issues. The survivors generally agreed about feeling more comfortable around those who understood the challenges that they had been through. A desire for more group activities and mentorship programs to address their specific issues related to exploitation was articulated. These findings regarding policy recommendations truly highlighted that a large-scale change cannot be done without listening to what the CSEC survivors need from the system, service providers, the community, and the researchers, as well.

Discussion

The current study involved a qualitative content analysis of 36 interviews with young women who survived sexual exploitation as adolescents and reported spending time in detention. The focus of the analysis was on the respondents’ experiences in custody to discern how their forced involvement in CSEC shaped their juvenile justice encounters. Several themes were identified in the interviews. While discussing their stay in detention, the survivors provided extraordinarily complex and comprehensive accounts that touched upon many areas, which resulted in an additional research question of how the survivors themselves suggest they should be treated in the system.

First, labeling and stigmatization of the survivors in detention were frequently discussed, the respondents being upset about their treatment in detention. This finding provided support to the results of previous studies (Oselin, 2010; Pasko, 2010), which concluded that belonging to the sexually exploited population is especially stigmatizing. External and internal processes were recognized in the responses. It was noted that while they were the victims, they were being treated as criminals in the juvenile justice system. On the other hand, labeling occurred by the interviewees themselves, as they switched their self-referrals from “victims” to “kids” depending on their criminal charge being discussed. Since many of the survivors interviewed were not arrested and detained only for prostitution charges, statements like those by Alamo and Moapa serve as examples of how the survivors linguistically differentiated between their sexual exploitation and other charges: No participant claimed being ashamed of any other charge in particular.

Second, similarly to adult women (Bui & Morash, 2010; Cobbina, 2010), the CSEC victims revealed that detention has the potential to function as a turning point and to aid pro-social lifestyle. The accounts commonly described intricate internal processes and shifts which initiated the change and self-reflection, which were supported by their stay in detention. The internal processes, coupled with an external, negative force of detention, lent further support to the theoretical framework of cognitive transformations (Giordano et al., 2002; Oselin, 2010; Tebes et al., 2004).

Finally, a pattern of reflections regarding relationships was also detected when the respondents recollected their time in detention. Usually coming from dysfunctional homes (e.g., Chesney-Lind, 1986; Cimino et al., 2017), and exploitative relationships with their pimps and sex buyers, many respondents do not have a clear idea of a healthy, caring relationship (Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2016). The time in detention, therefore, allowed for relational needs to be reconsidered. Surprisingly, the victims focused on describing relational needs with adults and peers, rather than with romantic partners.

Values that oftentimes accompany conventional family life then became some of the most reoccurring themes: our study revealed that the needs for being heard out, loved, understood, cared for, and supported were most prevalent, which were findings supporting other research (e.g., Belknap et al., 1997; Chesney-Lind et al., 2008). Our findings also suggested that CSEC survivors did feel that delinquent peers can encourage other types of delinquent behavior through social learning (Bao et al., 2014; Garcia & Lane, 2013). Social learning seems to be the case especially when CSEC youth are grouped with detainees that have participated in criminal activity voluntarily.

The treatment suggestions section was the most novel and informative part of this article, as we gave voice to the priorities of the survivors themselves. Our emphasis on providing the survivors with this platform to voice their suggestions is due to the fact that previous literature assesses the quality of the treatment as generally low, and programs as ineffective. It is posited that for treatment to be effective, it must be gendered (i.e., take into account the specific needs of different genders; see, for example, Garcia & Lane, 2010). The treatment of sexually exploited juveniles must take into account the complex and often tragic histories of this population that in many cases involve abuse, neglect, and otherwise unstable backgrounds (Chesney-Lind, 1986).

Programs that provide mental health services and individual and group therapy are particularly emphasized in the literature (Roe-Sepowitz et al., 2012), because CSEC youth is a population that regularly suffers from mental health issues (Clawson & Goldblatt Grace, 2007). Austin, with her recommendation for more mental health treatment, supported this notion.

Limitations

The results provide a valuable starting point for inquiries about the CSEC survivors’ experiences in correctional settings, but this study is not without limitations. One of the main issues is generalizability outside of Nevada that poses as a unique case, as adult prostitution is legalized in rural parts of the state. Due to the low base numbers in the state, the juvenile offenders are generally sent to one facility, and repeatedly encounter the same staff and peers, which could reinforce the patterns of the experiences described here. Consequently, CSEC survivors in other states may have different experiences, and different patterns may be detected in their interviews.

The interview that was administered to the participants could have produced some limitations, too. Some of the young women in the sample discussed their experiences with other detainees, although these discussions were not as extensive as when speaking of the interactions with the staff. This may be the result of no questions being asked specifically about their peers in detention. However, it could also indicate that their primary focus was the respondents’ relationship with themselves, and with adults that had authority over them in the institution.

Conclusion

Commercial sexual exploitation of children is a pressing issue that negatively affects the lives of the impacted individuals and, consequently, harms the whole society. The juvenile justice system often responds by sentencing the CSEC victims to spend time in detention, not offering more effective solutions to this vulnerable population. Due to its stigmatizing effects and restrictions in freedoms, detention is not the preferred (or suitable) method of treatment of CSEC. Some favorable aspects of detention were found in the current study. Respondents reported that the physical protection offered by the detention, paired with appropriate services, allowed them to reflect on their lives and relationships, and pursue a change. The themes found in the responses of the CSEC survivors lend some support to theoretical frameworks of cognitive transformations, but also offer original findings that parallel results of studies on similar populations (e.g., Bui & Morash, 2010; Cobbina, 2010). As per programming, the survivors themselves suggested group and mentoring activities that would help them overcome their struggles in a supportive environment. The emphasis in programming suggestions was on sharing and working with others; the survivors did not promote individual modality. In regard to facility preferences, the most common recommendation involved a home-like facility that would effectively limit the use of traditional correctional facilities for juveniles with this population. The concerns raised in the interviews make it clear that programming for the CSEC victims needs to be gender-responsive and trauma-informed, and include the perspective of the true content experts, these survivors.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Grant Number 2015-VF-GX-0064 awarded by National Institute of Justice.

ORCID iD

Tereza Trejbalová

Notes

Author Biographies

Tereza Trejbalová is a PhD student of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Trejbalová’s research investigates the death penalty in different cultural settings, prison adjustment and misconduct, and the experiences of system-impacted women. She has co-authored several published works on these topics, which have appeared in academic journals like The China Quarterly or Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research.

Heather Monaghan is a PhD student in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her research interests include school safety, juvenile delinquency, and sex crimes. She has worked on research on hot spot mapping, sexual re-victimization, and school safety measures.

M. Alexis Kennedy PhD, JD, is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her forensic psychology research covers diverse topics of victimization including human trafficking.

Michele R. Decker, ScD, MPH, is an associate professor in the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research focuses on social determinants of women’s health and gender equity with an emphasis on gender-based violence, its prevention, and its implications for sexual and reproductive health.

Andrea N. Cimino, PhD, MSW, is a research associate at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing. Her research focuses on gender-based violence with a specific focus on women engaged in street prostitution and the prostitution exiting process. Dr. Cimino holds a PhD and master’s degree in Social Work from Arizona State University.

References

Acoca

(1998). Outside/inside: The violation of American girls at home, on the streets, and in the juvenile justice system. Crime & Delinquency, 44(4), 561–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128798044004006

Banks

Kyckelhahn

(2011). Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents, 2008-2010. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cshti0810.pdf

Bao

Haas

Chen

(2014). Repeated strains, social control, social learning, and delinquency: Testing an integrated model of general strain theory in China. Youth & Society, 46(3), 402–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11436189

Belknap

Holsinger

Dunn

(1997). Understanding incarcerated girls: The results of a focus group study. The Prison Journal, 77(4), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855597077004003

Bond-Maupin

Maupin

J. R.

Leisenring

(2002). Girls’ delinquency and the justice implications of intake workers’ perspectives. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(2–3), 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v13n02_04

Bui

H. N.

Morash

(2010). The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after prison release. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670903435381

Cauffman

(2008). Understanding the female offender. The Future of Children, 18(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0015

Chesney-Lind

(1977). Judicial paternalism and the female status offender: Training women to know their place. Crime & Delinquency, 23(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877702300203

Chesney-Lind

(1986). “Women and crime”: The female offender. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12(1), 78–96. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3174358

10.

Chesney-Lind

Morash

Stevens

(2008). Girls’ troubles, girls’ delinquency, and gender responsive programming: A review. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 162–189. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.41.1.162

11.

Cho

J. Y.

Lee

(2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf

12.

Cimino

A. N.

(2018). Sex work and adult prostitution: From entry to exit. In Van Hasselt

V. B.

Bourke

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of behavioral criminology: Contemporary strategies and issues (pp. 239–255). Springer.

13.

Cimino

A. N.

Madden

E. E.

Hohn

Cronley

C. M.

Davis

J. B.

Magruder.

, et al. (2017). Childhood maltreatment and child protective services involvement among the commercially sexually exploited: A comparison of women who enter as juveniles or as adults. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 26(3), 352–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2017.1282575

14.

Clawson

H. J.

Goldblatt Grace

L. G.

(2007). Finding a path to recovery: Residential facilities for minor victims of domestic sex trafficking. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/75186/ib.pdf

15.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2010). Reintegration success and failure: Factors impacting reintegration among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(3), 210–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509671003666602

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

18.

Desai

(2010). A rights-based preventative approach for psychosocial well-being in childhood. Springer.

19.

Development Services Group, Inc. (2014). Commercial sexual exploitation of children/sex trafficking. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/CSECSexTrafficking.pdf

20.

Furdella

Puzzanchera

(2015). Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/248899.pdf

21.

Galardi

T. R.

Settersten

R. A.

(2018). “They’re just made up different”: Juvenile correctional staff perceptions of incarcerated boys and girls. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.040

22.

Garcia

Lane

(2010). Looking in the rearview mirror: What incarcerated women think girls need from the system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110376341

23.

Garcia

C. A.

Lane

(2013). What a girl wants, what a girl needs: Findings from a gender-specific focus group study. Crime & Delinquency, 59(4), 536–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128709331790

24.

Giordano

Cernkovich

Rudolph

(2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1086/343191

25.

Graneheim

U. H.

Lundman

(2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

26.

Guerette

R. T.

Johnson

S. D.

Bowers

(2016). Situational crime prevention. In Blomberg

T. G.

Brancale

J. M.

Beaver

K. M.

Bales

W. D.

(Eds.), Advancing criminology and criminal justice policy (pp. 130–140). Routledge.

27.

Herrman

J. W.

Sexton

J. S.

(2017). Girls leaving detention: Perceptions of transition to home after incarceration. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 33–47.

28.

Hipwell

A. E.

Loeber

(2006). Do we know which interventions are effective for disruptive and delinquent girls? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9(3–4), 221–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-006-0012-2

29.

Hubbard

D. J.

Matthews

(2008). Reconciling the differences between the “gender-responsive” and the “what works” literatures to improve services for girls. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2), 225–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706296733

30.

Irwin

Pasko

Davidson

J. T.

(2018). Girls and women in conflict with the law. In DeKeseredy

W. S.

Dragiewicz

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of critical criminology. Routledge.

31.

Jones

N. J.

Brown

S. L.

Wanamaker

K. A.

Greiner

L. E.

(2014). A quantitative exploration of gendered pathways to crime in a sample of male and female juvenile offenders. Feminist Criminology, 9(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113501850

32.

Justia. (2018). Juvenile crimes. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/other-crimes/juvenile-crimes/

33.

Kamruzzaman

Hakim

M. A.

(2016). Prostitution going spiral: The myth of commercial child sex. International Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, 1(1), 1–6.

34.

Kennedy

Stout

Bejinariu

(2018). Caliente girls’ needs assessment. http://alexiskennedy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Caliente-Girls-Needs-Assessment-5.18.pdf

35.

Mathur

S. R.

Colla

Pangasa

Thompson

G. M.

Hartzell

R. I.

(2018). High school assignment completion: A case study of a collaborative intervention in detention. Journal of Applied Juvenile Justice Services, 2018, 39–53.

36.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.

37.

Moore

McArthur

Saunders

(2013). Young people talk about transitioning from youth detention to the community: Making good. Australian Social Work, 66(3), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2012.752020

38.

Musto

(2013). Domestic minor sex trafficking and the detention-to-protection pipeline. Dialectical Anthropology, 37(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-013-9295-0

39.

Nichols

A. J.

Heil

E. C.

(2015). Challenges to identifying and prosecuting sex trafficking cases in the Midwest United States. Feminist Criminology, 10(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113519490

40.

Oselin

S. S.

(2010). Weighing the consequences of a deviant career: Factors leading to an exit from prostitution. Sociological Perspectives, 53(4), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2010.53.4.527

41.

Oselin

S. S.

(2014). Leaving prostitution: Getting out and staying out of sex work. NYU Press.

42.

Pasko

(2010). Damaged daughters: The history of girls’ sexuality and the juvenile justice system. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 1099–1130.

43.

Pasko

(2017). Beyond confinement: The regulation of girl offenders’ bodies, sexual choices, and behavior. Women & Criminal Justice, 27(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1259598

44.

Pasko

Chesney-Lind

(2016). Running the gauntlet: understanding commercial sexual exploitation and the pathways perspective to female offending. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0041-6

45.

Potterat

J. J.

Phillips

Rothenberg

R. B.

Darrow

W. W.

(1985). On becoming a prostitute: An exploratory case-comparison study. Journal of Sex Research, 2(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498509551271

46.

Roe-Sepowitz

D. E.

Hickle

K. E.

Cimino

(2012). The impact of abuse history and trauma symptoms on successful completion of a prostitution-exiting program. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.598830

47.

Saar

M. S.

Epstein

Rosenthal

Vafa

(2015). The sexual abuse to prison pipeline: The girls’ story. Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-inequality-center/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/02/The-Sexual-Abuse-To-Prison-Pipeline-The-Girls’-Story.pdf

48.

Sanders

(2007). Becoming an ex-sex worker: Making transitions out of a deviant career. Feminist Criminology, 2(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085106294845

49.

Sherman

Balck

(2015). Gender injustice: System-level juvenile justice reforms for girls. The National Crittenton Foundation. http://www.nationalcrittenton.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Gender_Injustice_Report.pdf

50.

Sickmund

Sladky

T. J.

Kang

Puzzanchera

(2019). Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

51.

Simkins

Katz

(2002). Criminalizing abused girls. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1474–1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102237966

52.

Spivak

A. L.

Wagner

B. M.

Whitmer

J. M.

Charish

C. L.

(2014). Gender and status offending: Judicial paternalism in juvenile justice processing. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114531318

53.

Sullivan

(2018). Education systems in juvenile detention centers. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2018(2), 71–100.

54.

Tebes

J. K.

Irish

J. T.

Puglisi Vasquez

M. J.

Perkins

D. V.

(2004). Cognitive transformation as a marker of resilience. Substance Use & Misuse, 39(5), 769–788. https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120034015

55.

The Human Trafficking Initiative. (2018). Nevada’s online commercial sex trade. http://awakenreno.org/be-informed/nvcommercialsextrade/

56.

Trupin

E. W.

Stewart

D. G.

Beach

Boesky

(2002). Effectiveness of a dialectical behaviour therapy program for incarcerated female juvenile offenders. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 7(3), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00022

57.

Vitopoulos

N. A.

Peterson-Badali

Skilling

T. A.

(2012). The relationship between matching service to criminogenic need and recidivism in male and female youth: Examining the RNR principles in practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(8), 1025–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812442895

58.

Watson

Edelman

(2013). Improving the juvenile justice system for girls: Lessons from the States. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 20(2), 215–268.

59.

Westervelt

S. D.

Cook

K. J.

(2007). Feminist research methods in theory and practice: Learning from death row exonerees. In Miller

(Ed.), Criminal justice research and practice: Diverse voices from the field (pp. 21–38). Northeastern University Press.

60.

White

L. M.

Lau

K. S.

Aalsma

M. C.

(2016). Detained adolescents: Mental health needs, treatment use, and recidivism. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, 44(2), 200–212.

61.

Wordes

Jones

S. M.

(1998). Trends in juvenile detention and steps toward reform. Crime & Delinquency, 44(4), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128798044004005