Combating Digital Sex Trafficking Against Minors in NYS
What is Sex Trafficking? How About Digital Sex Trafficking?
The National Human Trafficking Hotline defines sex trafficking as “when an individual is forced, coerced, or deceived to perform commercial sex. Minors engaging in commercial sex are considered to be victims of sex trafficking, regardless of the use of force, fraud, or coercion.” A person can experience sex trafficking regardless of age or gender, and 85% of sex trafficking happened with the aid of the internet. Sex trafficking can start, proceed, and complete on the internet, via anonymous chatroom, mobile transaction, sex cam, or social media. Research completed in 2018 shows that 5% (out of a sample size of 5,568) of middle and high school students had been victims of sextortion, and 3% admitted to threatening others who had shared an image with them in confidence (Patchin & Hinduja 2018).
However, when we think about sex trafficking, often we picture young girls being lured out of their families and then kidnapped and forced into prostitution. The victim might be an immigrant being smuggled into the country, or an innocent young girl seeking love but stepping into an evil trap. The fact that youth and adult can be trafficked merely through the internet without being smuggled out of their house, school, or office are not known to the public. Online sexual grooming, which means a trafficker approach victims online and earns their trust with the intention of sexually abusing or exploiting them, became more and more common (Ramiro et al. 2019). The traffickers befriended the victim online, obtain their personal information, then initiated some inappropriate interactions. After the initial exchange, the traffickers will use that information and materials to further threaten the victims to cooperate with more trafficking and exploitation to come. The trafficker may even share other illegal child pornography with their targeted victim to normalize and downplay the severity of their attempt (Sinclair et al. 2015). Pornography-based sexual exploitation is a relatively new but still prevalent way to sex trafficked victims. Often, those videos and pictures of the victims are later put on pornographic websites for purchase (Waston 2021).
Prevention Initiative
Human Trafficking Prevention has been an international goal, The Palermo Protocol published by the United Nation urged all countries to address human trafficking and promote the rehabilitation of trafficking victims (United Nations 2000). A series of anti-trafficking campaigns also swoop through Eastern Europe in the late 90s and early 2000s, which deepen the narrative of a beautiful but vulnerable female victim being sex trafficked by a masculine figure (Andrijasevic 2007).
The States also have initiatives to combat human trafficking. In 2021, the White House published The National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, which emphasizes the urgency to prevent trafficking, protect and support victims, and prosecuted traffickers.
The H.R.4980 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (the Act) was established in 2014. This Act particularly addresses the risk of sex trafficking minors faced, it regulated all state governments should identify, document, report, and provide services to child sex trafficking victims. The act emphasized the vulnerability of minors in care, and require all state agencies to provide screening efforts to children in the child welfare system.
According to the 2007 report by the NYS Office of Children and Family Services, 85% of trafficked youth had prior child welfare involvement. A pilot screening result by the WestCoast Children’s Clinic (2012) also found that when performing universal screening in child welfare agencies, juvenile justice agencies, and community-based children support organizations, 11.5% of the minors had a significant concern of being trafficking victims. Another data provided by the WestCoast Children’s Clinic is that “75% of young people who experience commercial sexual exploitation endure multiple years of abuse before anyone intervenes”.
In response to the Act and the significant risk youth in care faced, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) published 15-OCFS-ADM-16 Requirements to Identify, Document, Report, and Provide Services to Child Sex Trafficking Victims. This ADM regulated that all local districts and voluntary agencies need to screen minors (0–18) who are in the care, custody, or supervision of the New York State for sex trafficking.
The Achillea’s Heel of the NYS Initiative to Combat Sex Trafficking Against Minors
According to NPR (2019), research shows that 53 percent of children in the US own a smartphone by the age of 11, and 84 percent of teenagers now have their own phones. This reflects the easy access to the internet for minors in the US. Furthermore, since the pandemic, children have had more access to smart devices and the internet for school work and courses (Slavin & Storey 2020). This all reflects the importance of raising awareness of the risk of digital sex trafficking against minors.
Performing a universal screening on the most vulnerable demographic can be a very effective way to combat sex trafficking. However, the screening tool has a fatal flaw: it does not have effective indicators that can identify minors who are experiencing sex trafficking digitally.
The OCFS sex trafficking screening tools include two parts:
- The Rapid Screening tool: separate minors into At Risk or No Risk
- The Comprehensive Screening Tool: categorized At Risk minors into Medium Indicator, High Indicator, or Victim
This Rapid Screening Tool is the universal screening tool that all minors who touched the child welfare system will be screened with. However, out of the 11 questions, 6 of them are indicators that are solely based on offline trafficking:
- Question 3: having a parent/guardian who was a trafficking victim can be an indicator for children at risk of trafficking, but the correlation between the two may not apply to children who become a trafficking victims via the internet
- Question 4: child runaway or disappearing without parents or guardians’ consent can be an important indicator for offline trafficking, but it does that help identified children who were trafficked digitally.
- Question 5: tattoo can be a method traffickers tried to control and intimidate victims, but it does not apply to victims who are trafficked online
- Question 6: romantic relationship with an adult who appears to be controlling is also an indicator that mostly works for offline trafficking
- Question 7: pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases can only happen when the victim is trafficked offline
- Question 10: if a victim’s identification/passport was held by others, it also suggests both parties have contact offline
These 6 questions are still valid and effective indicators, if their only purpose is to identify sex trafficking that happened offline. However, with the growing dependency on the virtual world among minors, a screening tool that considered digital sex trafficking can be extra beneficial. Some may argue that online sex trafficking eventually may accelerate into offline trafficking, yet we need to keep in mind: the reason for the screening is to identify and assist at-risk youth as soon as possible. In addition, out of the 11 questions, only Question 2 include descriptions that specifically applied to trafficking that rely on the use of the internet (social media post that indicates sexual abuse).
Comprehensive Screening Tool are designed to be completed if the minor was screened as At Risk by the Rapid Screening Tool, which means that the youth who were at the early stage of being victimized and youth who are only being trafficked online discreetly will not even be screened by the Comprehensive Screening Tool. This pointed out the urgency of updating the Rapid Screening Tool to include more indicators that will apply to digital sex trafficking.
In the Comprehensive Screening Tool, the same problem of neglecting virtual risk still stands. One other issue is that many indicators in this tool are outdated:
- For the Victim Indicator, the advertisement websites listed only included Craigslist and Backpage, when it should take into consideration of the popularization of different social media platforms and messaging apps.
- For High Indicator, the trafficking terms and slangs included are from almost a decade ago, before the ADM is issued in 2016. On top of that, the social media platforms it listed (Zoosk and Facebook) should also be updated.
What Else Do We Know About Digital Sex Trafficking?
Research on digital sex trafficking suggests that “the ongoing and shared challenge of the global law enforcement community is to effectively and efficiently respond to the increased use of the Internet as a forum for the sexual exploitation of children (Sinclair et al. 2015).” To address the increasing threat of digital sex trafficking against children, more research on digital sex trafficking against children can inform law enforcement on offenders’ triggers and risk factors. In addition, Sinclair et al. (2015) pointed out the importance of educating minors and the public to have awareness of the danger online.
Another important element to consider when trying to combat sex trafficking is to be inclusive of the population the policy and prevention effort serves. Boukli and Renz (2019) demonstrated that the ideology behind anti-trafficking policies and campaigns often had hidden “hierarchies of victimhood (Carrabine et al., 2004),” which believe only victims who fit in a certain feminine stereotype are worth helping and waiting for rescue. This hierarchy of victimhood hence blocked access to help and support for LGBTQ+ victims. Similarly, Kampdoo (2015) has suggested the need to rethink the anti-trafficking campaign in the 21st century. She observed that modern anti-trafficking campaigns often result in rescue missions for white men from the global North to save victims that they believe are innocent and worth saving.
Lastly, while digital sex trafficking needs to be addressed and digital sex traffickers need to be prosecuted, Roots and Lockhart (2021) pointed out a wave of discourse that is trying to “responsibilize the young complainants in an attempt to discredit their victimhood and re-construct them as online sexual risk takers.” These victim-blaming ideologies can be seen in the defense statement from the trafficker, and some online safety campaigns targeting youth. We need to be extra careful not to shame minors on their sexuality when teaching them how to behave safely on the internet.
Recommendations and Conclusion
To improve the NYS policy to combat digital sex trafficking against minors, I urge an update of the screening tool to include more indicators of digital sex trafficking. The current Rapid and Comprehensive screening only has indicators that can identify sex trafficking happening offline. To identify victims early on and stop youth from being sex trafficked digitally, the screening tool needs to include indicators that point towards either their online behavior or more generalized questions about their daily life and other high-risk factors. For example, the screening tool can include indicators like “sudden change in screen time and cell phone use,” “engage in sexual activities that may cause them harm,” and “develop romantic relationship(s) online.” While including more indicators that can help detect digital sex trafficking, current questions that are outdated should also be updated.
To combat digital sex trafficking towards minors, the NYS government should also partner with local research institutions to gain more understanding of the risk factors and screening efforts of digital sex trafficking. Moreover, research on how to conduct an effective and inclusive education program for minors on internet use should be a priority. An effort to educate school staff, parents, and other professionals that will interact with children on the current pattern of digital sex trafficking is also needed. I suggest the government should not only produce such training, but also make sure to circulate them wide enough. As I can see there are some materials published online by the government to educate people on sex trafficking, but it does not seem like it attracts enough views.
Lastly, I want to reiterate the importance of an inclusive and LGBTQ+ youth-friendly policy and program. Other than making sure the policy to identify trafficking victims includes all minors regardless of their sexuality, gender, ethnicity, and background, the government should also ensure the inclusiveness of the services provided to youth who are at risk or a victim of sex trafficking. Recognizing that marginalized groups are equally, if not more at risk of digital sex trafficking can help develop a more comprehensive and effective response to the threat of digital sex trafficking.
