End the Demand! For Ideologically Based Human Trafficking Responses
by Kathleen M. Preble, MSW, PhD
We’ve all heard them. Stories about an exceptionally young female (usually White) who has been sexually trafficked by an older, sociopathic male (usually a person of color). Stories that seem too wild to be true, but the storytellers insist — they are ab-so-lutely true! These stores usually involve kidnappings (relatively rare in human trafficking), drugs (no clear evidence drugs preferred by traffickers), a shopping center, and an unsuspecting victim — a “perfect victim”. But does this narrative really describe what we know about human trafficking? Do these extreme examples describe a human rights issue, or are these stories outliers to the norm? Why does this matter?
This smart justice blog post is part of a series about what I think may inspire smarter human trafficking approaches. I want to set the stage that challenges YOU to advocate for — no, DEMAND that — we engage with science to understand more about human trafficking.
Reason #1: We have a definitional problem.
Professionals working in the field of human trafficking often do not agree on what meets the definition of what is and is not human trafficking. Without a clear direction on how we define a topic, we will consistently be comparing apples to oranges.
Reason #2: How we define the problem directs who we decide is “worthy” of help.
The pendulum of trafficking definition and response initially focused on foreign-born persons being trafficked to the United States for either sex or labor services, but now appears to have swung almost entirely to focus on domestic minors being commercially sexually exploited. Very little attention is given to trafficked men and boys, even though they represent nearly half of all victims, and there is almost no acknowledgement of trafficked LGBT individuals. Currently, most services and intervention efforts are focused on sex trafficking, with extremely little effort placed on labor trafficking; in spite of the fact that the vast majority of victims are labor trafficking victims. So, who is a victim and worthy of help? We can look a current reports of identified victims to get an idea, but if we are only looking for what we THINK are the characteristics of a victim today, we are overlooking others who may well be a victim but do not fit the “perfect victim” profile.
Reason #3: Our biased definitions influence policy initiatives and where we invest our resources.
These basic assumptions influence the ways in which we spend our resources and the areas of prevention and intervention we believe are most important. Without a strong understanding of what and how pervasive human trafficking is we blindly address an issue we believe is severe, but aren’t sure. Further, lack of clarity invites opportunities for ethical quagmires to develop which could further harm the vary population we seek to help (for example see: Wahab & Panichelli, 2013).
Increasingly, experts are advocating for harm reduction and human rights based approaches to understanding human trafficking and intervention. The reason? These approaches have a lot of evidence of success in working with vulnerable and exploited populations and these approaches are cost-effective.
Reason #4: In the absence of evidence, we lead with ideology.
Here’s the real danger that I’ve already alluded to. Just as running with scissors likely ends with undesired results, pursuing anti-trafficking efforts not grounded in evidence allows ideology to drive our response. We have already spent over $500 million in anti-trafficking efforts, and have not encountered the number of victims we presume are in the United States, nor have we come close to our goal of eradicating the “scourge” of trafficking. This does not mean, however, the issue is not worthy of addressing; rather, it means we need to look for evidenced-informed methods of approach that have more promise to achieve the results we desire.
Moreover, we run the risk of only looking for those individuals who fit the narrative we’ve been given — those who do not look exactly like the stories we’ve been told, are not victims of trafficking. The perfect victim profile risks being racially motivated and heteronormative which places exclusive assumptions on who is worthy of help and how to help them. Moreover, leading with ideology has created a moralistic narrative that incites panic and justifies “regressive practices” used to control the purity of women and immigration flows (Alvarez & Alessi, 2012, p. 147).
We’ve already seen how these dangers work out. For example, an ill-conceived policy called the “Prostitution Loyalty Oath” has had a negative effect on our HIV/AIDS prevention and outreach programs and was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013.
Bottom line: Without demanding solid evidence to drive our anti-human trafficking response, we embody the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
Kathleen focuses her area of inquiry on issues related to understanding power perceptions within human trafficking dyads and gender based violence. Reflecting on her nearly decade of social work practice experience with refugee and human trafficking populations, her research interests seek to increase our understanding of this human rights violation leading to empowering prevention, intervention, and aftercare service delivery. Dr. Preble is an Assistant Professor at the University of Missouri — Columbia School of Social Work. She can be reached at preblek@missouri.edu
