Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Hum Traffick. 2022 Jan 9;10(1):135–152. doi: 10.1080/23322705.2021.2011660

Human Trafficking in Correctional Institutions: A Survey of Correctional and Anti-Trafficking Leaders

Cynthia Fraga Rizo 1, Christopher J Wretman 1,2, Jia Luo 1, Tonya B Van Deinse 1, Nicole Sullivan 3, Sarah M Godoy 1, Erin A Meehan 1, Rebecca J Macy 1
PMCID: PMC10977664  NIHMSID: NIHMS1766937  PMID: 38560350

Abstract

Growing awareness of the overlap between justice involvement and human trafficking victimization has led to calls for correctional institutions to prevent, identify, and respond to trafficking. However, it is unclear how correctional facilities (i.e., jails and prisons) are responding to such calls to action. To examine current efforts to address human trafficking in U.S. correctional facilities, this study surveyed correctional and anti-trafficking leaders (n = 46) about their perceptions and experiences with human trafficking screening, response, and training in correctional facilities. Although the majority of leaders (89%) agreed individuals in their state’s correctional facilities have experienced human trafficking, they generally did not perceive that correctional staff were prepared to respond. Bivariate tests revealed that correctional and anti-trafficking leaders differed on their perceptions regarding correctional staffs’ knowledge about human trafficking risk factors (p = .014), identification ability (p = .006), and response knowledge (p = .036), with anti-trafficking leaders perceiving correctional staff to be less prepared in these areas. Approximately 16% of leaders reported strategies to identify and respond to trafficking in correctional facilities, and about 27% reported human trafficking training for corrections staff. To promote a just society, study findings offer preliminary guidance for anti-trafficking correctional initiatives and future research.

Keywords: Human trafficking, Prison, Jail, Correctional leaders, Anti-trafficking leaders, Survey

Human trafficking—defined as the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit people for the purpose of labor or commercial sex—is a pressing criminal and social justice issue often perpetrated against vulnerable groups in the United States (U.S.; Farrell, Bouché, et al., 2019; U.S. Department of State, 2000). The true scope and prevalence of human trafficking is difficult to ascertain because of challenges related to the hidden nature of the crime as well as the lack of a national data system for tracking human trafficking (Franchino-Olsen et al., 2020; Nemeth & Rizo, 2019). Nonetheless, human trafficking has been identified in every state across the U.S. (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). Research has established that victims of trafficking often have multiple needs related to a plethora of potential negative consequences including anxiety, depression, pain, posttraumatic stress disorder, housing insecurity, and employment difficulty (e.g., Banović & Bjelajac, 2012; Oram et al., 2012; Suwetty et al., 2019).

Human trafficking is an area of concern for both criminal justice and social services fields (Jones & Kingshott, 2016; Okech et al., 2018). Increasing awareness and understanding of human trafficking in both fields has highlighted the potential overlap between justice-involvement and human trafficking victimization. In particular, there is growing concern that justice-involved individuals in correctional systems may experience human trafficking victimization before or during their time in jail or prison, as well as upon release and reintegration (Connell et al., 2015; Villacampa & Torres, 2015). In response, there have been calls for correctional settings to prevent, identify, and respond to human trafficking (Ringler, 2019; Stelter, 2014). However, to date, there is limited understanding of how correctional settings are addressing these calls to action. To better understand how correctional institutions are working to address human trafficking, the national survey reported herein sought to determine current efforts to identify and respond to human trafficking in correctional settings across the U.S.

Overlap Between Justice-Involvement and Human Trafficking

Criminogenic Risk Factors

Extensive research has documented criminogenic risk factors associated with engaging in criminal behavior, and thus likely becoming involved with the criminal justice system. Key criminogenic risk factors and related indicators fall within eight domains—often referred to as the Central Eight: (a) history of antisocial behavior, (b) antisocial cognition, (c) antisocial personality patterns, (d) antisocial associates, (e) family and marital circumstances (e.g., family conflict, negative relationships, low levels of monitoring and supervision), (f) school and work (e.g., low achievement and satisfaction), (g) leisure and/or recreation (e.g., limited involvement in non-criminal activities), and (h) substance use (Andrews et al., 2006; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Although additional risk factors have been identified in the literature—including distress, mental illness, and physical health concerns—the Central Eight represent the criminogenic risk factors most strongly associated with criminal behavior (Andrews et al., 2006; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Moreover, there remains variability across the Central Eight in terms of the strength of their relationship with criminal behavior. The Big Four (i.e., antisocial behaviors, cognitions, personality pattern, and associates) consist of the factors most strongly related to criminal behavior, whereas the Moderate Four (i.e., family/ marital circumstances, school/work, leisure/recreation, and substance use) are those more moderately related to criminal behavior (Andrews et al., 2006; Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

Human Trafficking Victimization and Risk Factors

Although there has been growing research focused on determining correlates and risk factors associated with human trafficking (Authors; Franchino-Olsen, 2021), the research in this area is nascent. Nonetheless, various factors associated with human trafficking have been identified across multiple studies, with the majority of studies focusing on individual and interpersonal risk factors. On the individual level, risk factors for human trafficking include psychological factors (e.g., mental illness and mental health concerns such as denigration of self/others, dysfunctional attachment, and low self-esteem) as well as child abuse and maltreatment, difficulty in school (e.g., education not commensurate with age), history of running away or being through away, homelessness, substance use, system involvement (e.g., child protection, criminal justice), and violent crime victimization (Authors; Cole et al., 2016; Franchino-Olsen, 2021; Kenny et al., 2020; Varma et al., 2015; Vrubliauskaitė, 2018). Risk factors for human trafficking at the interpersonal or relationship level include caregiver strain, negative family relationships (e.g., conflicts with parents), parental substance use, peer influence, and witnessing family violence or criminality (Authors; Franchino-Olsen, 2021; Lukman et al., 2011; Reid & Piquero, 2016). More research is needed to determine the relative strength of the relationship between these risk factors and experiencing human trafficking victimization.

Shared Risk Factors

Notably, there are various overlapping risk factors for engaging in criminal behavior and experiencing human trafficking victimization. For example, difficulty at school has been identified as a risk factor for both criminal behavior and human trafficking victimization. Family influence—including family conflict, negative family relationships, and limited monitoring and supervision—has also been associated with an increased risk of engaging in criminal behavior and experiencing human trafficking. In addition, criminal behavior and human trafficking victimization are both associated with peer influence and substance use. Although not part of the Central Eight, distress and mental health concerns are also associated with criminal behavior and human trafficking victimization. Moreover, criminal justice involvement itself has been identified as a risk factor for experiencing human trafficking victimization (e.g., Cole et al., 2016; McNeal & Walker, 2016; Middleton et al., 2018). The Central Eight criminogenic risk factors may also represent consequences of human trafficking victimization. For example, human trafficking victims may use substance use as a strategy to cope with their victimization and trauma. Traffickers might also isolate victims, making it difficult for them to participate in positive leisure and recreational activities or attend school (Goodman & Masur, n.d.). Given these overlapping factors, justice-involved individuals may have experienced or be at increased risk of experiencing human trafficking.

Human Trafficking in Corrections

Although human trafficking victims regularly intersect with professionals in the criminal justice system, their victimization often remains under-identified given disparate knowledge, lack of training, and unclear distinction between trafficking and other crimes (Dandurand, 2017; Farrell, Dank, et al., 2019). Trafficking victims are often arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for secondary crimes related to their victimization such as drugs, fraud, prostitution, theft, and weapon possession (Geist, 2012; Ravi et al., 2017; Serita, 2012). Additionally, traffickers are known to target incarcerated individuals—particularly women—with vulnerabilities related to limited education and job skills, mental health challenges, substance use, and trauma (Binzer, 2016; Stelter, 2014). Recruitment tactics include using recruiters from within correctional settings as well as using public records and correspondence to identify and groom potential victims (Binzer, 2016; Stelter, 2014).

To help address the issue of human trafficking in corrections, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) developed the Correctional Anti-Human Trafficking Initiative. The purpose of this initiative is to offer resources for increasing awareness among correctional staff and incarcerated individuals, and to ensure victims are identified and provided services and support (NIC, n.d.). Nonetheless, despite this laudable initiative, there has been a dearth of research on correctional efforts to identify and respond to human trafficking.

Current Study

This exploratory, cross-sectional study presents a likely first-of-its-kind national survey of correctional and anti-trafficking leaders on the important topic of human trafficking identification and response in corrections. The overall goal of the study was to investigate how correctional settings (i.e., jails, prisons) across the U.S. are currently identifying and responding to human trafficking. The study was guided by the following three research questions:

RQ #1: What are stakeholders’ perceptions regarding human trafficking in correctional settings, and do these perceptions vary between correctional leaders and anti-trafficking leaders?

RQ #2: What are stakeholders’ experiences with human trafficking screening, response, and training in correctional settings?

RQ #3: What are stakeholders’ experiences using collaborative strategies to address human trafficking in correctional settings?

Understanding the perceptions and experiences of correctional and anti-trafficking leaders will help in the development of initiatives to identify human trafficking in correctional settings and connect victims to needed services and resources.

Method

A study-developed survey (see Appendix) was used to collect information from correctional and anti-trafficking leaders. The survey was disseminated nationwide as part of a larger parent project focused on human trafficking victimization and corrections. The overall project, named Human Trafficking and North Carolina Corrections: Identifying and Responding to Victims and Women at Risk, was a collaborative effort led by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Reentry Programs and Services and a research team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. All research procedures were reviewed and approved by the Office of Human Research Ethics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (#20–0127).

Participants and Procedures

The target population for this study consisted of two groups of stakeholders: (a) correctional leaders (e.g., leaders of State Department of Corrections or Department of Public Safety) and (b) anti-trafficking leaders (i.e., leaders of statewide anti-human trafficking organizations). To be eligible for study inclusion, individuals had to meet the following criteria: (a) be a correctional leader or the leader of a statewide anti-trafficking organization in the U.S., (b) be a fluent English speaker with basic English reading and writing skills, and (c) be ≥ 18 years of age. The sampling frame of correctional leaders consisted of the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA) membership listserv, which includes 63 chief executive officers of state and large jail systems in the U.S. As a prominent national organization, CLA was an optimal partner for this study because of their goals to promote, support, and advance the profession of corrections. The sampling frame of anti-trafficking leaders was developed by systematically searching the Internet and repositories for statewide human trafficking organizations (e.g., alliances, coalitions, collaborations, commissions, and task forces) and consisted of 82 leaders.

The CLA managed the recruitment and survey administration for correctional leaders over a 4-week period between September 10, 2020 and October 12, 2020. The research team managed this process for anti-trafficking leaders over a 6-week period between October 13, 2020 and November 24, 2020. All potential participants were sent an e-mail invitation, which included a study description and link to the electronic survey. Non-responding correctional leaders received one reminder e-mail. Non-responding anti-trafficking leaders received up to three reminder e-mails with options for opting out of the study. In addition, one anti-trafficking leader who started but had not completed the survey received a telephone reminder.

Survey Instrument

An initial draft of the survey was created based on the aims of the current study using (a) research team expertise and (b) a review of existing human trafficking attitudes and perceptions instruments (e.g., Cunningham & Cromer, 2016; Houston-Kolnik et al., 2016; Nsonwu et al., 2015; Rizo et al., 2019). After the research team reviewed the draft survey’s wording and appropriateness, the revised survey was transferred into a web-based format using the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). The web-based survey was piloted by the research team, and team feedback was used to enhance the ease and functionality of the survey.

The final survey included informed consent and 21 content-related questions focused on: (a) human trafficking perceptions and the role of corrections (5 questions; strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]), (b) human trafficking screening in correctional settings (6 questions), (c) human trafficking response in correctional settings (2 questions), (d) human trafficking training in correctional settings (5 questions), (e) collaboration (1 question), and (f) participant characteristics (2 questions). The question regarding collaboration is the only content-related question that differed based on type of stakeholder. Anti-trafficking leaders were asked about how they engage with prisons and/or jails to address human trafficking, whereas correctional leaders were asked about how they engage with other agencies (e.g., local anti-human trafficking agency, state human trafficking coalition or taskforce, rape crisis center) to address human trafficking in prisons and/or jails. Response options for most questions were close-ended and varied depending on the question (see Appendix).

Some close-ended questions included an “other” response category inviting participants to specify more detail. In addition, there were a few qualitative, open-ended questions that allowed participants to respond with descriptions (e.g., “Please provide the name and a brief description of the human trafficking screening tool(s) being used in these settings” and “Please describe the human trafficking response procedures being used in these settings”). Participants were also invited to upload any human trafficking screening tools being used in their state’s prisons or jails to the survey platform. Excluding two outlier observations which completed the survey over multiple days, the mean completion time was 10.1 minutes.

Data Analysis

Quantitative analyses first comprised summarizing participants’ responses overall and by leader type (i.e., correctional or anti-trafficking). As all variables were ordinal, frequencies and percentages of responses were calculated. Preliminary checks determined that, at most, only one observation was missing across key variables and, as such, no imputation of missing values was carried out, resulting in listwise deletion of missing observations. The primary outcome analysis focused on the five stakeholder perceptions questions, which were tested for bivariate differences by leader type. These responses were first collapsed from their original 5-point scoring to a 3-point scoring of strongly disagree/disagree (1), neutral (2), and agree/strongly agree (3), and then tested using two-sided Fisher’s exact tests with the Mehta-Patel extension (Mehta & Patel, 1983) on the resultant 3×2 tables of responses. These tests were conducted in an exploratory fashion as the sample did not necessarily have sufficient statistical power to detect large differences. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05. All quantitative analyses were conducted in Stata 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Qualitative analysis was descriptive in nature and involved applying basic content analysis to the limited qualitative data generated from the open-ended survey questions (Drisko & Maschi, 2016). Given the brief and concrete nature of the responses, analysis was conducted by one team member only. The first author coded the manifest data to reduce the data and determine a set of representative codes for each question (Crowe et al., 2015; Drisko & Maschi, 2016; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). As appropriate, frequencies were generated for the emergent codes. Qualitative analysis was conducted in Excel.

Results

Participant Characteristics

As presented in Table 1, a total of 46 stakeholders representing 28 states participated in the study (n = 26 for correctional leaders, 41% response rate; n = 20 for anti-trafficking leaders, 24% response rate). Of the 44 participants that provided information on their professional affiliation, 50% (n = 22) were affiliated with a state Department of Corrections/Department of Public Safety, 16% (n = 7) were affiliated with a human trafficking task force, 11% (n = 5) were affiliated with a human trafficking coalition, 2% (n = 1) were affiliated with a human trafficking commission, and 21% (n = 9) reported their affiliation as other (e.g., analyst, anti-trafficking response team, anti-trafficking service provider, health department, human trafficking council, investigations manager, and sergeant).

Table 1.

Stakeholder Employment States, by Stakeholder Role

States All
Stakeholders
N = 46
Frequency (%)		 Correctional Leaders
n = 26
Frequency (%)		 Anti-trafficking
leaders
n = 20
Frequency (%)
Alabama 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Arizona 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
California 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.0)
Colorado 3 (6.5) 1 (3.9) 2 (10.0)
Connecticut 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Delaware 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Florida 3 (6.5) 1 (3.9) 2 (10.0)
Illinois 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.0)
Kansas 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Kentucky 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Massachusetts 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Michigan 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.0)
Minnesota 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Mississippi 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Missouri 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Montana 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
New Hampshire 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
New Mexico 2 (4.4) 2 (7.7) 0 (0.0)
New York 3 (6.5) 3 (11.5) 0 (0.0)
North Carolina 3 (6.5) 1 (3.9) 2 (10.0)
North Dakota 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Oklahoma 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Oregon 2 (4.4) 0 (0.0) 2 (10.0)
South Dakota 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Vermont 2 (4.4) 1 (3.9) 1 (5.0)
Virginia 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
Washington 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.0)
Wisconsin 1 (2.2) 1 (3.9) 0 (0.0)
N/A (National) 1 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 1 (3.9)
Open in a new tab

Note. Data collected from September to November 2020 via online survey from stakeholders in 28 states.

Perceptions of Human Trafficking in Correctional Settings

Table 2 summarizes key findings regarding correctional leaders’ and anti-trafficking leaders’ perceptions of human trafficking in correctional settings. Across both stakeholder groups, the majority (89%) agreed/strongly agreed that some individuals in the correctional institutions in their state have experienced sex trafficking with a suggestion, albeit lacking in statistical power to be significant, that anti-trafficking leaders were more likely to agree with the item (p = 0.16). However, correctional leaders and anti-trafficking leaders differed significantly in their perceptions of whether corrections staff have the necessary expertise to address human trafficking. Approximately 85% of anti-trafficking leaders strongly disagreed/disagreed that most corrections staff are knowledgeable of risk factors for human trafficking compared to 42% of correctional leaders (p = 0.014). Similarly, 85% of anti-trafficking leaders strongly disagreed/disagreed that most corrections staff are able to identify whether someone is experiencing or at risk of human trafficking compared to 52% of correctional leaders (p = 0.006). Likewise, 90% of anti-trafficking leaders strongly disagreed/disagreed that most corrections staff are knowledgeable about how to respond to someone experiencing or at risk of human trafficking compared to 54% of correctional leaders (p = 0.036). Correctional leaders and anti-trafficking leaders also differed significantly in their perceptions of the role of corrections staff in addressing human trafficking. All of the anti-trafficking leaders (100%) agreed/strongly agreed that corrections staff play an important role in identifying justice-involved victims of human trafficking compared to 58% of the correctional leaders (p = 0.001).

Table 2.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Human Trafficking (HT) in Correctional Settings, by Stakeholder Role

Perceptions All
Stakeholders
N = 46
Frequency (%)		 Correctional Leaders
n = 26
Frequency (%)		 Anti-Trafficking
Leaders
n = 20
Frequency (%)		 p
Some individuals in the correctional institutions in my state have experienced HT 0.16
 Strongly disagree/Disagree 2 (4.4) 2 (7.7) 0 (0.0)
 Neutral 3 (6.5) 3 (11.5) 0 (0.0)
 Agree/Strongly agree 41 (89.1) 21 (80.8) 20 (100.0)
Most corrections staff are knowledgeable of the risk factors for HT 0.014
 Strongly disagree/Disagree 28 (60.9) 11 (42.3) 17 (85.0)
 Neutral 10 (21.7) 8 (30.8) 2 (10.0)
 Agree/Strongly agree 8 (17.4) 7 (26.9) 1 (5.0)
Most corrections staff are able to identify whether someone is experiencing or at risk of HT a 0.006
 Strongly disagree/Disagree 30 (66.7) 13 (52.0) 17 (85.0)
 Neutral 12 (26.7) 11 (44.0) 1 (5.0)
 Agree/Strongly agree 3 (6.7) 1 (4.0) 2 (10.0)
Most corrections staff are knowledgeable about how to respond to someone experiencing or at risk of HT 0.036
 Strongly disagree/Disagree 32 (69.6) 14 (53.9) 18 (90.0)
 Neutral 8 (17.4) 7 (26.9) 1 (5.0)
 Agree/Strongly agree 6 (13.0) 5 (19.2) 1 (5.0)
Corrections staff play an important role in identifying justice-involved victims of HT 0.001
 Strongly disagree/Disagree 3 (6.5) 3 (11.5) 0 (0.0)
 Neutral 8 (17.4) 8 (30.8) 0 (0.0)
 Agree/Strongly agree 35 (76.1) 15 (57.7) 20 (100.0)
Open in a new tab

Note. Data collected from September to November 2020 via online survey from stakeholders in 28 states. Correctional institutions defined as “jails and prisons.” Corrections personnel defined as “administrators, corrections officers, social workers, healthcare providers working in jails/prisons.”

a

Missing data from one correctional stakeholder observation (n = 45). p values calculated using two-sided Fisher’s exact tests with the Mehta-Patel extension on 3×2 tables of responses (including “Neutral”) by stakeholder role.

Experiences with Human Trafficking Screening, Response, and Training

Human Trafficking Screening and Response

Table 3 highlights findings regarding correctional and anti-trafficking leaders’ experiences with screening and response practices for human trafficking in correctional settings. Across both stakeholder groups, only seven leaders (16%) shared that some correctional institutions in their state were screening for human trafficking. These leaders shared that screening took place during intake (n = 4, 57%) or at some other point (e.g., “proactive investigations;” n = 2, 29%), and that screening tools were administered by correctional staff (n = 2, 29%) or other personnel (e.g., independent trained professional, investigator; n = 3, 43%).

Table 3.

Stakeholder Experiences with Screening & Response Practices for Human Trafficking (HT) in Correctional Settings, by Stakeholder Role

Screening & Response Practices All
Stakeholders
N = 46
Frequency (%)		 Correctional Leaders
n = 26
Frequency (%)		 Anti-trafficking
Leaders
n = 20
Frequency (%)
Some correctional institutions in my state are screening for HT a
 No 17 (37.8) 12 (48.0) 5 (25.0)
 Yes 7 (15.6) 1 (4.0) 6 (30.0)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 21 (46.7) 12 (48.0) 9 (45.0)
Point at which the HT screening tool is administered b
 During intake 4 (57.1) 0 (0.0) 4 (66.7)
 Prior to release 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 Other 2 (28.6) 1 (100.0) 1 (16.7)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 1 (14.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (16.7)
Method by which the HT screening tool is administered b
 Self-administered 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 Administered by correctional staff 2 (28.6) 0 (0.0) 2 (33.3)
 Other 3 (42.9) 1 (100.0) 2 (33.3)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 2 (28.6) 0 (0.0) 2 (33.3)
Some correctional institutions in my state have a procedure for responding to HT identifications and/or disclosures c
 No 13 (28.9) 8 (30.8) 5 (26.3)
 Yes 7 (15.6) 3 (11.5) 4 (21.1)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 25 (55.6) 15 (57.7) 10 (52.6)
Open in a new tab

Note. Data collected from September to November 2020 via online survey from stakeholders in 28 states. Correctional institutions defined as “jails and prisons.” Corrections personnel defined as “administrators, corrections officers, social workers, healthcare providers working in jails/prisons.”

a

Missing data from one correctional stakeholder observation (n = 45).

b

Responded to only by those stakeholders (n = 7; 15.6%) who indicated “Yes” regarding correctional institution use of a HT screening tool in their state.

c

Missing data from one HT stakeholder observation (n = 45).

Varied screening practices were described by the seven leaders in response to a qualitative open-ended question. Four of these leaders described screening practices specific to juvenile justice facilities, including the use of self-developed human trafficking screening tools (e.g., Colorado’s High-Risk Victim Identification Tool), the use of screening tools developed by other organizations (i.e., a domestic minor sex trafficking screening tool developed by Shared Hope, the Commercial Sexual Exploitation – Identification Tool developed by Westcoast Children’s Clinic), and a two-tiered screening process. For example, an anti-trafficking leader shared, “Two tiered. If red flags [are] noted at intake, some digital, some handwritten, a second more intensive interview is done by an independent trained professional.” Two leaders did not specify whether the screening practices they described were specific to youth or adult facilities. Of these, one leader noted the use of a self-developed screening instrument augmented by interviews and existing data, and the other reported the use of investigations (e.g., “intelligence, inmate phone system, and contraband cell phone forensics”). One leader was unsure of the specific screening practices being used in their state’s correctional institutions.

Similar to findings regarding screening practices, seven leaders (16%) across both groups shared that some correctional institutions in their state had a procedure for responding to human trafficking identifications and disclosures. In response to a qualitative open-ended question, participants shared the following response procedures: notifying criminal justice professionals (e.g., criminal investigators, law enforcement, attorneys; n = 6, 86%), notifying social services (n = 2, 29%), and notifying behavioral health professionals (n = 1, 14%). For example, an anti-trafficking leader noted, “Once someone has been identified they contact the Human Trafficking Sergeant. From there, based on the complex histories and previous involvement, [the potential victim] will be contacted face to face or via secure jail telephone.”

Human Trafficking Training

Table 4 presents findings regarding training practices for human trafficking in correctional settings. A total of 12 correctional and anti-trafficking leaders (27%) reported that some correctional institutions (i.e., jails and prisons) in their state provide corrections staff training on human trafficking. Leaders shared that human trafficking trainings covered an array of content, including human trafficking definitions (n = 11, 92%), red flags or indicators (n = 11, 92%), recruitment tactics (n = 10, 83%), identification (n = 9, 75%), policies (n = 6, 50%), response (n = 5, 42%), and other topics (i.e., intel collection, local tactics, trends, and victim-centered services; n = 1, 8.3%). These trainings were available in-person (n = 8, 67%), via a web-based platform (n = 7, 58%), and other formats (i.e., “one-on-one trainings as events occur;” n = 1, 8.3%). Training facilitators included community partners (n = 6, 50%), correctional staff (n = 4, 33%), and others (i.e., Department of Corrections Victim Services, law enforcement, and victim advocates; n = 3, 25%). Human trafficking trainings in correctional settings targeted multiple audiences including correctional officers (n = 9, 75%), case managers (n = 8, 67%), social workers (n = 8, 67%), administrators (n = 7, 58%), nurses and health care providers (n = 7, 58%), psychiatrists (n = 5, 42%), and others (e.g., attorneys, chaplains, court staff, facility security, judges, and parole and probation; n = 2, 17%).

Table 4.

Stakeholder Experiences with Training Practices for Human Trafficking (HT) in Correctional Settings, by Stakeholder Role

Training Practices All
Stakeholders
N = 46
Frequency (%)		 Correctional Leaders
n = 26
Frequency (%)		 Anti-trafficking Leaders
n = 20
Frequency (%)
Some correctional institutions in my state provide corrections staff training on HT a
 No 18 (40.0) 13 (50.0) 5 (26.3)
 Yes 12 (26.7) 7 (26.9) 5 (26.3)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 15 (33.3) 6 (23.1) 9 (47.4)
HT training content b,c
 Definitions 11 (91.7) 7 (100.0) 4 (80.0)
 Policies 6 (50.0) 2 (28.6) 4 (80.0)
 Recruitment tactics 10 (83.3) 6 (85.7) 4 (80.0)
 Red flags or indicators 11 (91.7) 7 (100.0) 4 (80.0)
 Identification 9 (75.0) 5 (71.4) 4 (80.0)
 Response 5 (41.7) 2 (28.6) 3 (60.0)
 Other topics 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)
HT training format b,c
 In-person 8 (66.7) 4 (42.9) 4 (80.0)
 Web-based 7 (58.3) 6 (85.7) 1 (20.0)
 Other 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)
HT training facilitation b,c
 Correctional staff 4 (33.3) 1 (14.3) 3 (60.0)
 Community partner 6 (50.0) 5 (71.4) 1 (20.0)
 University/Research partner 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
 Other 3 (25.0) 3 (42.9) 0 (0.0)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)
HT training audience b,c
 Administrators 7 (58.3) 5 (71.4) 2 (40.0)
 Corrections officers 9 (75.0) 5 (71.4) 4 (80.0)
 Case managers 8 (66.7) 6 (85.7) 2 (40.0)
 Social workers 8 (66.7) 5 (71.4) 3 (60.0)
 Nurses/Health care providers 7 (58.3) 5 (71.4) 2 (40.0)
 Psychiatrists 5 (41.7) 4 (57.1) 1 (20.0)
 Other 2 (16.7) 1 (14.3) 1 (20.0)
 I don’t know/I’m not sure 1 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (20.0)
Open in a new tab

Note. Data collected from September to November 2020 via online survey from stakeholders in 28 states. Correctional institutions defined as “jails and prisons.” Corrections personnel defined as “administrators, corrections officers, social workers, healthcare providers working in jails/prisons.”

a

Missing data from one HT stakeholder observation (n = 45).

b

Responded to only by those stakeholders (n = 12; 26.7%) who indicated “Yes” regarding correctional institution provision of HT training for staff in their state.

c

Responses are not mutually exclusive.

Experiences with Collaboration Strategies for Human Trafficking

Correctional and anti-trafficking leaders used various collaboration strategies to address human trafficking in prisons and jails (see Table 5). Across both groups, collaboration strategies included meetings (n = 17, 38%), cross trainings (n = 11, 24%), consulting (n = 8, 18%), developing policies and protocols (n = 7, 16%), coordinating post-release plans (n = 6, 13%), delivering services (n = 6, 13%), and other strategies (e.g., interactions, multi-disciplinary groups such as task forces, trainings/workshop; n = 10, 22%). For example, one anti-trafficking leader shared, “Our office coordinates a statewide training on sex trafficking laws & investigations for law enforcement and prosecutors. We have had a few Corrections staff attend.” As another example, a correctional leader shared “We have an investigator assigned to a Federal [Human Trafficking] Task force.” Notably, 29% reported no collaboration.

Table 5.

Stakeholder Experiences with Collaboration Strategies for Human Trafficking (HT) in Correctional Settings, by Stakeholder Role

Collaboration Strategies a,b All
Stakeholders
N = 46
Frequency (%)		 Correctional Leaders
N = 26
Frequency (%)		 Anti-trafficking Leaders
N = 20
Frequency (%)
Meetings 17 (37.8) 9 (36.0) 8 (40.0)
Cross trainings 11 (24.4) 5 (20.0) 6 (30.0)
Consulting 8 (17.8) 3 (12.0) 5 (25.0)
Developing policies/protocols 7 (15.6) 2 (8.0) 5 (25.0)
Coordinating post-release plans 6 (13.3) 5 (20.0) 1 (5.0)
Delivering services 6 (13.3) 4 (16.0) 2 (10.0)
None 13 (28.9) 8 (32.0) 5 (25.0)
Other 10 (22.2) 3 (12.0) 7 (35.0)
I don’t know/I’m not sure 5 (11.1) 4 (16.0) 1 (5.0)
Open in a new tab

Note. Data collected from September to November 2020 via online survey from stakeholders in 28 states.

a

Missing data from one correctional stakeholder observation (n = 45).

b

Responses are not mutually exclusive.

Discussion

This study begins to address important knowledge gaps regarding the role of correctional settings in identifying and responding to human trafficking victimization by surveying 46 correctional and anti-trafficking leaders. Although leaders generally agreed that individuals in their state’s correctional settings have experienced human trafficking victimization, the study findings indicate that limited efforts related to human trafficking screening, response, and training are being carried out. The following sections highlight study findings as well as recommendations for practice and research.

Correctional Institutions—Important Settings for Addressing Human Trafficking

Related to RQ #1, correctional and anti-trafficking leaders generally agreed that individuals in correctional institutions across their state have experienced human trafficking. This finding reflects a growing concern that justice-involved individuals in jails and prisons may in fact be victims of human trafficking (Connell et al., 2015; Villacampa & Torres, 2015). Scholars have argued that human trafficking victims may experience double victimization, both from the trafficking itself and from being arrested and convicted of crimes committed in the context of their trafficking and exploitation (e.g., Barnard, 2014; Connell et al., 2015; Villacampa & Torres, 2015). In addition to deterring future help-seeking (Connell et al., 2015), being arrested, charged, and made to serve a sentence (i.e., being treated like an offender vs. a victim) can create barriers for employment and housing that are often leveraged by traffickers to further exploit victims, thus leading to additional charges and convictions (Barnard, 2014; Connell et al., 2015).

Despite awareness that individuals in the correctional institutions in their state may have experienced human trafficking, correctional and anti-trafficking leaders generally perceived corrections staff to be unprepared to address human trafficking. Concerning RQ #1, anti-trafficking leaders were more likely than correctional leaders to disagree that corrections staff are knowledgeable about human trafficking risk factors, identification, and response. Given their expertise in human trafficking, anti-trafficking leaders may have responded to these questions with a greater understanding of the complexity of human trafficking identification and response (Authors). The identification of human trafficking victims has been described as one of the greatest challenges to addressing human trafficking (Okech et al., 2012). Barriers to appropriately identifying and responding to human trafficking include lack of knowledge regarding the issue, difficulty interviewing victims and screening for trafficking, and misreading signs of trafficking (Villacampa & Torres, 2017). Moreover, even when professionals are able to identify human trafficking, they are often unprepared to address victims’ complex, varied, and unique needs and may be unaware of hotlines and referral sources (Donahue et al., 2019; Okech et al., 2012).

In addition, findings related to RQ # 1 determined that correctional and anti-trafficking leaders also differed in their perceptions of whether corrections staff play an important role in identifying justice-involved victims of human trafficking. Whereas all of the anti-trafficking leaders agreed that corrections staff play an important role in human trafficking identification, just slightly over half of the correctional leaders agreed. Correctional leaders are important stakeholders guiding decisions regarding the implementation of correctional initiatives in their state. Therefore, it is necessary to better understand why some correctional leaders disagreed that corrections staff play an important role in identification. Further evidence about leaders’ perceptions of trafficking identification may help inform strategies to garner correctional leaders’ support for anti-trafficking initiatives, as well as address potential barriers to the implementation of such initiatives.

Current Efforts for Addressing Human Trafficking in Correctional Institutions

In response to RQ #2, few correctional and anti-trafficking leaders reported that the correctional institutions in their state were employing efforts to address human trafficking through screening, response, and training. Of the seven leaders who reported that their state was screening for human trafficking in correctional settings, four described screening practices specific to juvenile justice facilities. This finding supports a general trend of increased attention focused on preventing, identifying, and responding to human trafficking among youth compared to adults (Gerassi & Nichols, 2017; Musto, 2013). Moreover, findings suggest that when correctional institutions are screening for human trafficking, they often develop their own screening tools or use tools developed by other organizations as opposed to using standardized screening instruments. This finding is not surprising given the dearth of research on screening tools and response protocols developed for and tested in criminal justice settings (Authors; Macy & Graham, 2012).

About a fourth of the correctional and anti-trafficking leaders reported that some correctional institutions in their state train corrections staff on human trafficking. These trainings tended to focus on understanding and identifying human trafficking. Less than half of the leaders shared that the training also included content on responding to human trafficking. Research on human trafficking trainings targeting other professionals (e.g., health care providers) highlights the importance of covering content on and protocols for appropriately and ethically responding to human trafficking identifications and disclosures (Armstrong et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2015). Ensuring trainings include content on response is critical given that professionals are less likely to screen for violence victimization when they feel unprepared to respond (Aluko et al., 2015).

Related to RQ #3, correctional and anti-trafficking leaders reported using multiple strategies to engender collaboration between criminal justice and social service professionals to address human trafficking in jails and prisons. However, slightly less than one-third reported no collaboration efforts. This finding is notable given that human trafficking is a complex criminal justice, public health, and social welfare issue that intersects with various sectors and disciplines. Collaboration has been espoused as a key strategy for combatting human trafficking, with key collaborators including attorneys, law enforcement, and victim advocates or providers (Kim et al., 2018; Okech et al., 2012). Research on collaborative models to address human trafficking has found such models increase coordination and service quality (Kim et al., 2018).

Implications for Practice and Research

Study findings underscore the need for more human trafficking screening, response protocols, and staff training in correctional settings. To advance such practice, future research is needed in five key areas. First, there is a pressing need for research focused on testing human trafficking screening instruments and protocols in correctional institutions. In addition to ensuring human trafficking instruments are methodologically valid and reliable when used with justice-involved individuals in correctional institutions, it is also necessary to ensure that screening protocols and procedures are feasible, acceptable, victim-centered, and trauma-informed (Authors). Notably, many correctional institutions already use actuarial-based assessment instruments informed by research on criminogenic risk factors as part of their standard intake and/or post-release process to determine risk of re-offending and inform decisions related to placement, interventions, and level of supervision (Harcourt, 2007; Starr, 2014; Wachter, 2015). Examples of these instruments include the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (Brennan et al., 2008), the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 2000), the Ohio Risk Assessment System (Latessa et al., 2010), and the Women’s Risk Needs Assessment (Van Voorhis et al., 2013). Although most of these instruments focus on the Central Eight criminogenic risk factors, a couple also assess for protective factors and many include additional domains related to mental health problems and housing status (Desmarais, Johnson, & Singh, 2016). Given the overlap between criminogenic risk factors and risk factors associated with experiencing human trafficking victimization, researchers and practitioners could consider adding a human trafficking screening module to an existing criminogenic risk factor assessment instrument (Goodman & Mazur, n.d.).

Second, future research is needed to evaluate existing protocols for immediately responding to human trafficking identifications and disclosures. Such research is sorely needed to ensure that response protocols include best practices that are feasible, acceptable, and effective at addressing the immediate needs of human trafficking victims. Third, future research should evaluate human trafficking trainings for correctional staff to determine the utility of training content as well as whether such trainings are effective at improving anti-trafficking knowledge, attitudes, skills, intentions, and behaviors (i.e., screening and response; Ahn et al., 2013; Powell et al., 2017).

Fourth, it is important to determine the needs of incarcerated people who have experienced or are at-risk of experiencing human trafficking to ensure that critical resources and programming are offered to identified victims while in custody as well as when they begin re-entry into their home communities. Relatedly, future research could investigate which programming and resources might be most valuable for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people. Programming and resources, such as economic services and job training, physical and mental healthcare, peer-support, safe and trauma-informed housing, as well as wrap-around services and supports to address practical needs, may be worth investigating for their potential to prevent trafficking of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals. Fifth, there has been increasing discussion regarding the use of labor performed by justice-involved individuals in corrections settings—specifically, prison labor (Leung, 2018; Sliva & Samimi, 2018). Activists have argued that such labor is often exploitive and coercive (DelSesto, 2021). Although the current study does not address this important issue, future research is needed to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences related to the use of labor in correctional settings. Overall, this study highlights the need for practice and research at the intersection of human trafficking and the criminal justice system.

Limitations

Findings should be considered in light of study limitations. This study relied on a relatively small convenience sample. Despite efforts to recruit a large national sample, study recruitment took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The timing of the study may have resulted in smaller response rate than originally anticipated given that leaders were addressing pressing issues related to COVID-19. Therefore, findings may not be representative of other correctional and anti-trafficking leaders working in the same or different states. Relatedly, the sample included a heterogeneous group of correctional leaders, including those providing leadership across different types of correctional institutions (i.e., jails and prisons) and populations (i.e., youth and adults) as well as those providing leadership over a specific type of correctional facility. Despite important differences between jails and prisons, as well as between justice-involved youth and adults, this exploratory study was unable to systematically examine differences in screening, response, training, or collaboration based on the type of correctional facility or population of justice-involved individuals. However, this exploratory study demonstrates the ability to survey correctional and anti-trafficking leaders and highlights important implications for practice and future research.

Conclusions

To the best of the research team’s knowledge, this is the first study to examine correctional and anti-trafficking leaders’ perceptions regarding human trafficking in correctional settings, as well as their experiences with human trafficking screening, response, training, and relevant collaborations. In light of increasing attention to the issue of human trafficking among justice-involved individuals as well as calls for correctional staff to identify and appropriately respond to human trafficking, study findings offer preliminary guidance for human trafficking correctional initiatives as well as directions for future research. While awaiting results from future research on training, screening, and response, correctional and anti-trafficking leaders could partner to (a) develop and deliver human trafficking trainings for correctional staff, and (b) identify and implement tools and protocols for identifying and responding to human trafficking. Overall, this preliminary and exploratory study furthers the conversation regarding how best to ensure that human trafficking victims in correctional institutions are identified and connected to needed services.

Supplementary Material

Appendix

Acknowledgments:

For their support of and contributions to this project, we acknowledge and thank Nicole Sullivan, Director of Reentry Programs and Services at the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, as well as Christine Shaw Long, Executive Director of the North Carolina Human Trafficking Commission. In addition, we acknowledge and thank the Correctional Leaders Association, especially Jill Stewart and Katie Scott, for their help and support.

Funding support:

This project was supported by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Reentry Programs and Services (#DPS-22238379-JEC) through a grant from the North Carolina Human Trafficking Commission. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this product are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety or the North Carolina Human Trafficking Commission. Tonya B. Van Deinse was supported by The Lifespan/Brown Criminal Justice Research Training Program which is funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse (R25DA037190).

Footnotes

Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest: No potential competing interests were reported by the authors.

References

  1. Ahn R, Alpert EJ, Purcell G, Konstantopoulos WM, McGahan A, Cafferty E, Eckardt M, Conn KL, Cappetta K, & Burke TF (2013). Human trafficking: Review of educational resources for health professionals. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(3), 283–289. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Rousan T, Rubenstein L, Sieleni B, Deol H, & Wallace RB (2017). Inside the nation’s largest mental health institution: A prevalence study in a state prison system. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 342–342. 10.1186/s12889-017-4257-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aluko OE, Beck KH, & Howard DE (2015). Medical students’ beliefs about screening for intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. Health Promotion Practice, 16(4), 540–549. 10.1177/1524839915571183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews DA, & Bonta J (2000). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised Multi-Health Systems. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrews DA, & Bonta J (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. 10.1037/a0018362 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Andrews DA, Bonta J, & Wormith JS (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. 10.1177/0011128705281756 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Armstrong S, Greenbaum VJ, López C, & Barroso J (2020). Preparedness to identify and care for trafficked persons in South Carolina hospitals: A state-wide exploration. Journal of Human Trafficking, 6(3), 281–308. 10.1080/23322705.2019.1603747 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Banović B, & Bjelajac Z (2012). Traumatic experiences, psychophysical consequences and needs of human trafficking victims. Vojnosanitetski Pregled, 69(1), 94–97. 10.2298/VSP1201094B [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnard AM (2014). “The second chance they deserve”: Vacating convictions of sex trafficking victims. Columbia Law Review, 114(6), 1463–1501. [Google Scholar]
  10. Binzer L (2016). The prison pipeline: Recruiting women into human trafficking networks https://amuedge.com/the-prison-pipeline-recruiting-women-into-human-trafficking-networks/
  11. Brennan T, Dieterich W, & Ehret B (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the compas risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(1), 21–40. 10.1177/0093854808326545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cole J, Sprang G, Lee R, & Cohen J (2016). The trauma of commercial sexual exploitation of youth: A comparison of CSE victims to sexual abuse victims in a clinical sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(1), 122–146. 10.1177/0886260514555133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Connell NM, Jennings WG, Barbieri N, & Reingle Gonzalez JM (2015). Arrest as a way out: Understanding the needs of women sex trafficking victims identified by law enforcement. Journal of Crime & Justice, 38(3), 351–360. 10.1080/0735648X.2015.1007614 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Crowe M, Inder M, & Porter R (2015). Conducting qualitative research in mental health: Thematic and content analyses. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(7), 616–623. 10.1177/0004867415582053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cunningham KC, & Cromer LD (2016). Attitudes about human trafficking: Individual differences related to belief and victim blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(2), 228–244. 10.1177/0886260514555369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dandurand Y (2017). Human trafficking and police governance. Police Practice and Research, 18(3), 322–336. 10.1080/15614263.2017.1291599 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. DelSesto M (2021). Contested theories of prison labor practice. Sociology Compass, 15(7), 1–12. 10.1111/soc4.12888 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Donahue S, Schwien M, & LaVallee D (2019). Educating emergency department staff on the identification and treatment of human trafficking victims. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 45(1), 16–23. 10.1016/j.jen.2018.03.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Farrell A, Bouché V, & Wolfe D (2019). Assessing the impact of state human trafficking legislation on criminal justice system outcomes. Law & Policy, 41(2), 174–197. 10.1111/lapo.12124 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Farrell A, Dank M, Vries LD, Kafafian M, Hughes A, & Lockwood S (2019). Failing victims? Challenges of the police response to human trafficking. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 649–673. 10.1111/1745-9133.12456 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Franchino-Olsen H (2021). Vulnerabilities relevant for commercial sexual exploitation of children/domestic minor sex trafficking: A systematic review of risk factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 99–111. 10.1177/1524838018821956 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Franchino-Olsen H, Chesworth BR, Boyle C, Rizo CF, Martin SL, Jordan B, Macy RJ, & Stevens L (2020). The prevalence of sex trafficking of children and adolescents in the United States: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1–14. 10.1177/1524838020933873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Geist D (2012). Finding safe harbor: protection, prosecution, and state strategies to address prostituted minors. Legislation and Policy Brief, 4(2), 67–127. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gerassi LB, & Nichols AJ (2017). Sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation: Prevention, advocacy, and trauma-informed practice Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodman M, & Mazur R (n.d.). Identifying and responding to human trafficking http://www.htcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/Ch-5_140725_NACM_Guide_OnlineV_v04.pdf
  26. Harcourt BE (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hsieh H, & Shannon SE (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Houston-Kolnik JD, Todd NR, & Wilson M (2016). Preliminary validation of the sex trafficking attitudes scale. Violence Against Women, 22(10), 1259–1281. 10.1177/1077801215621178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jones TR, & Kingshott BF (2016). A feminist analysis of the American criminal justice system’s response to human trafficking. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(3), 272–287. 10.1080/1478601X.2016.1178642 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kenny MC, Helpingstine C, Long H, & Harrington MC (2020). Assessment of commercially sexually exploited girls upon entry to treatment: Confirmed vs. at risk victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 100, 104040–104040. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim H, Park T, Quiring S, & Barrett D (2018). The anti-human trafficking collaboration model and serving victims: Providers’ perspectives on the impact and experience. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 15(2), 185–202. 10.1080/23761407.2018.1432433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Latessa EJ, Lemke R, Makarios M, & Smith P (2010). The creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Federal Probation, 74(1), 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  33. Leung KE (2018). Prison labor as a lawful form of race discrimination. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 53(2), 681–708. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lukman ZM, Nasir R, Fauziah I, Sarnon N, Chong ST, Mostafa Kamal M, Mohamad MS, Zainah AZ, Subhi N, Fatimah O, Nen S, Hoesni SM, Khairudin R, & Rusyda HM (2011). The relationship between dysfunctional family and the involvement of children in prostitution. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Macy RJ, & Graham LM (2012). Identifying domestic and international sex-trafficking victims during human service provision. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13(2), 59–76. 10.1177/1524838012440340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. McNeal BA, & Walker JT (2016). Parental effects on the exchange of sex for drugs or money in adolescents. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 710–731. 10.1007/s12103-015-9313-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mehta CR, & Patel NR (1983). A network algorithm for performing Fisher’s exact test in r× c contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(382), 427–434. 10.1080/01621459.1983.10477989 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Middleton JS, Gattis MN, Frey LM, & Roe-Sepowitz D (2018). Youth experiences survey (YES): Exploring the scope and complexity of sex trafficking in a sample of youth experiencing homelessness. Journal of Social Service Research, 44(2), 1–17. 10.1080/01488376.2018.1428924 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Musto J (2013). Domestic minor sex trafficking and the detention-to-protection pipeline. Dialectical Anthropology, 37(2), 257–276. 10.1007/s10624-013-9295-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Correctional Anti-Human Trafficking Initiative (CAHTI) https://nicic.gov/correctional-anti-human-trafficking-initiative
  41. Nemeth JM, & Rizo CF (2019). Estimating the prevalence of human trafficking: Progress made and future directions. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 109(10), 1318–1319. 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nsonwu MB, Welch-Brewer C, Heffron LC, Lemke MA, Busch-Armendariz N, Sulley C, Cook SW, Lewis M, Watson E, Moore W, & Li J (2017). Development and validation of an instrument to assess social work students’ perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes about human trafficking questionnaire (PKA-HTQ): An exploratory study. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(5), 561–571. 10.1177/1049731515578537 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Okech D, Choi YJ, Elkins J, & Burns AC (2018). Seventeen years of human trafficking research in social work: A review of the literature. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 15(2), 102–121. 10.1080/23761407.2017.1415177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Okech D, Morreau W, & Benson K (2012). Human trafficking: Improving victim identification and service provision. International Social Work, 55(4), 488–503. 10.1177/0020872811425805 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Oram S, Stöckl H, Busza J, Howard LM, & Zimmerman C (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence and the physical, mental, and sexual health problems associated with human trafficking: Systematic review. PLoS Medicine, 9(5), e1001224–e1001224. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Powell C, Dickins K, & Stoklosa H (2017). Training US health care professionals on human trafficking: Where do we go from here? Medical Education Online, 22(1), 1267980–1267980. 10.1080/10872981.2017.1267980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Prins SJ (2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in U.S. state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862–872. 10.1176/appi.ps.201300166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Ravi A, Pfeiffer MR, Rosner Z, & Shea JA (2017). Identifying health experiences of domestically sex-trafficked women in the USA: A qualitative study in Rikers island jail. Journal of Urban Health, 94(3), 408–416. 10.1007/s11524-016-0128-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Reid JA, & Piquero AR (2016). Applying general strain theory to youth commercial sexual exploitation. Crime and Delinquency, 62(3), 341–367. 10.1177/0011128713498213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ringler R (2019). The role of corrections in the fight against human trafficking https://www.corrections1.com/corrections-training/articles/the-role-of-corrections-in-the-fight-against-human-trafficking-2gEqgDhroZlE6uNH/ [Google Scholar]
  51. Rizo CF, Klein L, Chesworth BR, Franchino-Olsen H, Villodas ML, Macy RJ, & Martin SL (2019). Educating students about sex trafficking and responding to students’ needs: Principals’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Human trafficking, 1–22. 10.1080/23322705.2019.169892232190715 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ross C, Dimitrova S, Howard LM, Dewey M, Zimmerman C, & Oram S (2015). Human trafficking and health: A cross-sectional survey of NHS professionals’ contact with victims of human trafficking. BMJ Open, 5(8), e008682–e008682. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Serita T (2012). In our own backyards: The need for a coordinated judicial response to human trafficking. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 36(4), 635–659. [Google Scholar]
  54. Starr S (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66(4), 803–872. [Google Scholar]
  55. Stelter L (2014). How pimps are recruiting vulnerable female prisoners https://amuedge.com/how-pimps-are-recruiting-vulnerable-female-prisoners/ [Google Scholar]
  56. Sliva SM, & Samimi C (2018). Social work and prison labor: A restorative model. Social Work, 63(2), 153–160. 10.1093/sw/swy009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). 2020 Trafficking in persons report: United States https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-trafficking-in-persons-report/united-states/
  58. U.S. Department of State (2000). Victims of trafficking and violence protection act of 2000 http://www.state.gov.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/documents/organization/10492.pdf
  59. Van Voorhis P, & Brushett R (2013). Revalidation of the Women’s Risk Needs Assessment: Institutional results, final report https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/research/wrna/re-validation-prison-wrna-final-report-2013.pdf [Google Scholar]
  60. Varma S, Gillespie S, McCracken C, & Greenbaum VJ (2015). Characteristics of child commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking victims presenting for medical care in the united states. Child Abuse & Neglect, 44, 98–105. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Villacampa C, & Torres N (2015). Trafficked women in prison: The problem of double victimisation. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(1), 99–115. 10.1007/s10610-014-9240-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Villacampa C, & Torres N (2017). Human trafficking for criminal exploitation: The failure to identify victims. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23(3), 393–408. 10.1007/s10610-017-9343-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wachter A (2015). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/JJGPS%20StateScan/JJGPS_StateScan_Statewide_Risk%20Assessment_2014_2.pdf [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix
NIHMS1766937-supplement-Appendix.docx (24.9KB, docx)

RESOURCES