Challenges to Reintegration: A Qualitative Intrinsic Case-Study of Convicted Female Sex Traffickers

Abstract

Limited research focuses on the nature of the lived experiences of women engaged in sex trafficking. This study employed qualitative methods of in-depth structured interviews with ten convicted sex traffickers (ages 24–56; 100% identifying as female). Participants’ lived experiences revealed circumstances that led them to trafficking, specific needs, and the stigmatization they faced after exiting economies tied to trafficking. Inductive analysis yielded three key barriers to reintegration success: limited choice; negative labeling; and unmet physical, emotional, and social needs. These findings enhance understanding of the factors influencing the successful reintegration of convicted female sex traffickers into mainstream society.

Introduction

The U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 defines sex trafficking as “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age.” Any person who experiences sexual exploitation as a child is considered trafficked by legal definition.

Trafficking is difficult to identify due to challenges with tracking victims, misidentification, plea agreements, decisions to not prosecute, and communication issues (Jordan et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2009). Additionally, a duality in anti-trafficking response creates additional barriers for trafficking victims by furthering the notion of a “perfect victim” and criminalization (Fukushima 2019). Consequently, many victims of sex trafficking are arrested and prosecuted, illuminating an overlap between traffickers and trafficked victims (Mogulescu 2012). Moreover, in cases where victims entering the criminal justice system are seen as “sources of evidence” or “offenders,” or when victims participated in criminalized activities, they are less likely to be identified as victims of trafficking (Villacampa & Torres 2019). Sex trafficking remains a complex phenomenon with a wide range of theoretical perspectives that leads to myriad physical, psychological, social, and financial harms (Barnert et al., 2017; Kara, 2009; Lange, 2011; Musto, 2009; Ottisova et al., 2016; Parreñas et al., 2012).

This study focuses on convicted female sex traffickers, some of whom also identify as survivors of trafficking, poverty, and intersecting forms of abuse such as child abuse, domestic violence, and assault. Treated as offenders within the criminal justice system, they often participated in the exploitation of others. This study focuses not on the participants’ offenses but on their lived experiences and survival strategies. We recognize the dual identities of some participants as both traffickers and trafficking survivors; however, it is not our intent to conflate all traffickers with victims of trafficking.

Research on sex trafficking has largely focused on exploring male traffickers’ attitudes toward their clients and those whom they traffic, their interactions with those whom they traffic, physical and sexual violence, and their perceived place in the sex-trafficking economy (Bales, 2005; Farr, 2005; Srikantiah, 2007; Troshynski & Blank, 2008; Troshynski & Blank, 2017). Few studies have addressed the specific issues faced by convicted female sex traffickers, such as separation from family, inability to obtain other employment, poor housing conditions, substance abuse, poor medical services, poor social skills, lack of education, and the role of stigma in their continued marginalization after returning to the community (Belenko, 2006; Bloom et al., 2003; Broad, 2015; Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Cobbina, 2010; Davidson & Chesney-Lind, 2009; Hipp et al., 2008; Iacono, 2014; Leverentz, 2011; Wijkman & Kleemans, 2019; Yea, 2020).

For many convicted female traffickers, their victimization serves as an entryway to the practice (Broad, 2015) and they begin selling/trading other women and children to exit their own trafficking and prostitution (Iacono, 2014). Because trafficked women are often exploited at lower positions in the sex-trafficking economy, they are subject to increased rates of detection and criminal punishment (Broad, 2015). Illegalized activities associated with trauma and sex trafficking (e.g. drug use), as well as continued impoverishment, increase the likelihood of future incarceration (Grittner & Walsh, 2020; Hipp et al., 2008; Nyamathi et al., 2016; Pogorzelski et al., 2005; Yea, 2020). Additionally, both trafficked women and female traffickers are often in intimate and abusive relationships with other traffickers, prolonging their exposure to trafficking and increasing the likelihood of incarceration (Broad, 2015; Verhoeven, 2015). While being a trafficking victim is one path to becoming a trafficker, some female traffickers appear to be motivated exclusively by profit (Arsovska & Allum, 2014). This article contributes to the limited scholarship focused exclusively on the lived experiences of cisgender convicted female sex traffickers and their specific needs for successful reintegration into mainstream society after incarceration (Wijkman & Kleemans, 2019).

Some research has explored female traffickers’ pathways into sex trafficking; however, it is critical to achieve a better understanding of the factors contributing to the failure of female sex traffickers and survivors to successfully reintegrate following incarceration (Broad, 2015; Cobbina, 2010; Iacono, 2014; Wijkman & Kleemans, 2019). Formerly incarcerated people are more likely to recidivate when they face reintegration barriers (Cobbina, 2010). The pathway perspective emphasizes a need for gender-specific reintegration efforts for female offenders due to gender-specific circumstances such as survival of physical or sexual abuse, poverty, and substance abuse, which lead them into crime and create unique mental health, educational, vocational, and family needs that, when unmet, can result in reintegration failure (Belknap, 2001; Bloom et al., 2003; Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2004; Heilbrun et al., 2008).

Social bond and risk-need-responsivity theories have been used to conceptualize recidivism risk (Adams et al., 2003; Belenko, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Chiricos et al., 2007; Cobbina, 2010; Laub & Sampson, 2003). According to social bond theory, stronger ties to individuals and institutions facilitate positive identities, mitigate negative peer contact, and reduce the impulse to commit crime (Laub & Sampson, 2003). Even while incarcerated, women’s relationships with their families of origin remain important to their identity (Leverentz, 2011). Motherhood is arguably one of the most stable social identities for women; consequently, coping with separation from family can negatively affect reintegration (Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Sandberg, Agoff, & Fondevila, 2020). Reclaiming relationships with children can be difficult for the formerly incarcerated due to financial hardship, social stigma, shame, and struggles with recovery from addiction (Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Cooper-Sadlo et al., 2018; Larsen, 2017; Nyamathi et al., 2016). Gender-specific interventions focused on supporting these relationships can increase reintegration success (Cobbina, 2010; King, Massoglia, & MacMillan, 2007; Richie, 2001).

Convicted female sex traffickers face myriad challenges following incarceration. Many are ill equipped to reintegrate (Deshpande & Nour, 2013). They often face challenges such as substance abuse, family conflict, low educational attainment, a lack of strong social support networks, and psychological trauma (Hipp et al., 2008; Davidson & Chesney-Lind, 2009; Davies, 2012; Mciver, 2020; Nyamathi, 2016) that diminish their ability to function successfully in society and increase the likelihood of recidivism (Deng, 2020; Le et al., 2019; Mciver, 2020; Ottisova et al., 2016; Stewart, 2016; Such et al., 2019). Their return to communities that lack reintegration services further increases this likelihood (Hipp et al., 2008), as does the criminalization of activities and behaviors associated with having been trafficked (Larsen, 2017; Nyamathi, 2016).

Formerly incarcerated women have described having their own home, being able to help family, and persevering through challenges as important to avoiding recidivism, with education and employment part of achieving these goals (Davies, 2012; Logan et al., 2009; McIver, 2020). Some studies have shown an inverse relationship between having children and recidivism, further demonstrating how public policy can increase recidivism (Benda, 2005; Enos, 2001; Nyamathi, 2016). Some legal commentators’ arguments for more stringent punishments and sex-offender registration for former female traffickers may further exacerbate obstacles to reintegration (Brown, 2011).

Risk-need-responsivity theory analyzes risk to reoffend by conceptualizing seven major risk factors, which include procriminal attitudes, family and marital relationships, and social support for crime; to successfully decrease recidivism, supportive programs should be proportional to the individual’s risk of reoffending (Belenko, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Labeling and rational-choice theories play a critical role in recidivism by emphasizing the importance of negative labeling and the use of available information to compare the costs and benefits of committing a crime (Adams et al., 2003; Chiricos et al., 2007; Cullen & Agnew, 2006; Grittner &Walsh, 2020; Meshkovska et al., 2015; Siegel, 1993; Wheaton et al., 2010). Evidence suggests that negative labels have stronger effects on women, who hold less power in society and therefore have more-limited opportunities to negate these labels (Chiricos et al., 2007; Messerschmidt, 1993). In rational-choice theory (Paternoster & Pogarsky, 2009), a key assumption is that offenders’ decisions are “purposive”—that is, deliberate acts committed intended to benefit the offender (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2007). For example, Bouché and Sandy (2017) used a rational-choice framework to posit that sex traffickers are rational actors who make calculated decisions to allow their victims access to the Internet and cell phones.

Despite growing interest in the trafficking of women and girls into coerced sex work (Barnert, et al. 2017; Franchino-Olsen et al., 2020; Nawyn et al., 2013), public policy has ignored the context of women’s lives and the participation of women themselves in trafficking. Consequently, both female traffickers and trafficking survivors continue to suffer disproportionately from ill-informed public policies such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, three-strikes laws, lifetime bans on cash assistance and food stamps, denial of housing, and barriers to reunification with children, all of which increase recidivism risk (Bloom et al., 2004; Deng, 2020). Broad (2015) contends that this disproportionate impact on women is partially due to their lower position in the sex-trafficking hierarchy.

Better understanding is needed of the factors contributing to reintegration success and failure among female sex traffickers and trafficking survivors, as reintegration directly affects criminal outcomes (Broad, 2015; Cobbina, 2010; Iacono, 2014; Wijkman & Kleemans, 2019). This qualitative, structured interview-based study, guided by labeling and rational-choice theories (Cullen and Agnew, 2006; Siegel, 1993), contributes to research on female perpetrators and their reintegration needs by focusing on the lived experiences of convicted female sex traffickers (N=10) in Texas, United States. By centralizing the voices of this subgroup, this study seeks to understand their pathways into sex trafficking, their specific needs, and the reintegration barriers they face. For the purposes of this study, we used the abovementioned definition of sex trafficking from the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

Methods

Study participants were incarcerated in a jail in southeast Texas. At the time of the study, the jail housed more than 150 women and had a reentry program for sex traffickers only. This program was deemed a “last chance” for participants to make positive changes in their lives and return to mainstream society. Many participants had requested placement in the reentry program, while others had been mandatorily placed there as a condition of reentry. Verified conviction of at least two of three crimes (participation in sex trafficking, prostitution, or drug abuse) was a critical criterion for placement into the reentry program. Moreover, a judge or the program director determined that the women selected for the reentry program were at high risk for returning to sex trafficking given their history. Accordingly, eligible participants for the present study (a) self-identified as sex traffickers, (b) were aged 18 years or older, (c) had enrolled in the reentry program for at least one day, and (d) spoke English. Eligibility was verified by both the jail major and the sergeant who oversaw the reentry program’s admission records. For reasons of participant privacy, these records were not made available to the principal investigator (PI). Participants’ statements about having been forcefully sexually victimized at some point in their lives were accepted as true.

Purposeful sampling is the most common type of nonprobability sampling used by qualitative researchers (Patton, 2002). This method was selected owing to its ability to select information-rich cases, with the objective of yielding insight and understanding of the phenomenon under study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). The interview protocol consisted of open-ended, self-constructed interview questions. The questionnaire was created with the assistance of other experts in the field with prior knowledge of the study issue. The PI also reviewed previous research (Cobbina, 2010; Cullen and Agnew, 2006; Siegel, 1993) on the topic to assure that questions did not critique participants’ lived experiences but were open-ended and exploratory in nature. Prior to the study’s implementation, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Capella University (IRB #2014-93) and the Special Operations and Crime Prevention Bureau overseeing the facility where the study was conducted both approved the study protocol.

The PI met with the gatekeeper (a person in charge of the inmates and all inmate records) at the jail, presented the research question, and provided copies of the interview questions and informed consent form. The gatekeeper was informed of the possible study risks and benefits and, to ensure that appropriate participants were selected, the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PI also provided a written request to enter the site to interview study participants and record the interviews using a digital voice recorder. The PI obtained an approval letter to conduct the study at the jail.

After consulting the gatekeeper, the PI scheduled a meeting with all 24 women in the reentry program who initially met the study eligibility criteria. The PI explained the study and answered questions. She said that the study was focused on better understanding the challenges faced by female sex traffickers reintegrating into mainstream society, not on sex trafficking victimization. She further stated that study participation probably would not directly assist the participants but might help others. The PI read aloud the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 definition of sex trafficking and explained that a person might be labeled as a sex trafficker due to a position she had been forcefully placed in and that participants’ classification as sex traffickers was understood because they were in the reentry program.

After the women verbally agreed to participate, the PI passed out packages containing the study consent form, interview questions, and the PI’s contact information. She explained that study participation was voluntary; the women were under no obligation to participate, nor would they be compensated for doing so.

Of the 24 inmates who attended this initial meeting, 15 were ultimately deemed eligible to participate; the other nine were coming up for release. The PI asked the eligible participants not to share any information about the study and to keep their packages stored securely until she returned the following week to collect them. To conceal participants’ identities, the packages featured no outside marking. The PI explained that all packages must be returned at the second visit, and there would be no repercussions for anyone who decided not to participate in the study.

After collecting the packages the following week, the PI selected participants for the final sample by placing all 15 sealed packages face down on a table. According to Crabtree (1999), Guest et al. (2006), and recommendations from Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007), 6 to 12 single interviews per homogeneous group are needed to reach data saturation. Thus, ten participants were chosen in accordance with case-study guidelines (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007; Patton, 2002). These guidelines—which included the research question, proper methods, data collection and sampling techniques, and theoretical framework—were in place to ensure that the PI could later present the study findings accurately and clearly. The first ten packages that were opened and found to contain a signed informed consent form were placed in a stack and labeled “Participant #1” through “Participant #10.” This blind selection method ensured that all participants had an equal chance of being selected (Hatch, 2002 & Patton, 2002). One inmate did not sign the consent form; that form was shredded, even though it was unsigned.

Once the study participants were selected, the PI called the gatekeeper to request an initial 5- to 10-minute meeting with each participant. At this meeting, the PI informed the participant that she had been selected for the study and confirmed the date, time, and location of the interview. The PI also reviewed the consent form and study information with the participant and reiterated that study participation was voluntary. The PI reminded each participant that, in addition to being a researcher, she was a police officer, and that any illegal or criminal information divulged would be reported to the proper authorities. The PI thanked each volunteer and informed her that if a selected participant terminated the interview, another volunteer would be called in as an alternate.

After obtaining additional approval both in writing and in person from the gatekeeper, the PI requested an interview room with a table, chairs, telephone, and electrical outlets to plug in a laptop computer or digital audio recorder. The phone was to be used to contact a jail official if a participant wanted to discontinue the interview and needed to be returned to her cell; it could also be used to contact a counselor or chaplain should the participant request to do so or the PI deem it necessary.

Structured, open-ended interviews, each lasting 45 to 60 minutes, were conducted in April 2014. The PI arrived at the designated area at the mutually agreed upon date and time to meet with the gatekeeper and review final details. The researcher presented the gatekeeper with copies of the interview questions and the IRB approval letter. To ensure confidentiality, each participant was interviewed separately in a private room and was asked the same questions in the same order (Supplementary Table 1). The PI recorded each interview on a digital audio recorder and, as suggested by Stake (1995) and Creswell (2007), took detailed notes to facilitate accurate later recall of what was discussed (Hatch, 2002; Maxwell, 2005).

As each participant entered the room, the PI observed body language, made eye contact, and enacted protocols including welcoming the participant, thanking her for volunteering to take part in the study, explaining the recorded interview process, reviewing the signed consent form, and reminding the participant that participation was voluntary and she could withdraw at any time without penalty. Each participant selected a pseudonym from a bag and henceforth was identified by that name. The PI answered all of the participant’s questions and concerns before beginning the interview. Once both the PI and participant were ready, the PI began recording the interview. Following every interview, three types of notes were filed: raw data (transcripts), interview audio recordings, and the PI’s notes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim within 3 days and analyzed for thematic saturation.

Data Analysis.

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2010), the central task during qualitative data analysis is to identify common themes in people’s descriptions of their experiences. After transcribing the interviews, the PI categorized the segments of each interview into meaningful groups, looking for statements indicating that study participants had experienced the phenomenon of sex trafficking in the same or similar ways. In conjunction with other qualitative patterns, the PI followed the analysis pattern developed by Hatch (2002, p. 153) that has proven useful in analyzing interview question data: (1) Identify typologies; (2) Read the data, marking entries related to your typologies; (3) Read entries by typology, recording the main idea in entries on a summary sheet; (4) Look for patterns, relationships, and themes within typologies; (5) Read data and coding entries according to identified patterns and record which entries go with which pattern element; (6) Describe whether your patterns are supported by the data and search the data for non-examples of your patterns; (7) Look for relationships among the identified patterns; (8) Write your patterns as one-sentence generalizations; (9) Select data excerpts that support your generalizations.

As suggested by Saldaña (2010), after completing the participant interviews the PI used field notes and recurring words or phrases from the interviews to compile a codebook. The PI summarized the primary topic of each coded datum in a column labeled Description Code. Thereafter, she became immersed in the data by repeatedly listening to the recorded interviews; reading interview notes; and listening for patterns, themes, and other relevant information. While listening to the interviews, she re-read all field notes to identify common themes, patterns, and other pertinent information. The interviews were interpreted for meaning (Creswell, 2007) using inductive analysis, which allows the researcher to discover important patterns, themes, and interrelationships in the hope of reaching a creative synthesis (Patton, 2002). As suggested by Leedy and Ormrod (2010), bracketing was used during both the interviews and data analysis to suspend any preconceived notions that could unduly influence what participants said. The PI achieved bracketing by acknowledging that she had knowledge of sex trafficking and that while working as a police officer she had arrested both sex traffickers and their victims. Yet the PI was careful to not judge any participant and to allow each participant to use language with which she was comfortable. The PI again made clear to each participant that her position required her to immediately report to the proper authorities any criminal information or threats to hurt self or others.

Results

Demographics.

At the time of the interviews, participants were aged 18–26 (10%), 27–36 (40%), 37–46 (10%), and 47–56 (40%); 40% had some high school education or had graduated high school, 20% had less than a high school education, 30% an associate’s degree, and 10% a master’s degree; 50% were non-Hispanic White, 30% non-Hispanic Black, 10% American Indian, and 10% self-identified as Hispanic. All collected demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics (N = 10)

Age	18–26	27–36	37–46	47–56
	1	4	1	4
Race/Ethnicity	American Indian	Black	Hispanic	White
	1	3	1	5
Education	No HS	Some HS/HS grad	Associate’s degree	Master’s degree
	2	4	3	1
No. of Children	None	1–3	4–6	7 or more
	2	5	1	2
Marriage History	Never	Currently Married	Currently in common-law marriage	Currently divorced
	3	5	1	1

HS, high school

Note: High school is defined as Grades 9–12

Participants’ Experiences.

To provide context and examples of similarities and differences in the participants’, summaries are given below (using their assigned pseudonyms). The summary below is a synthesizing of information collected from the data gathered (interviews and information gathered from the gatekeeper). The narratives offered provide important ways to humanize the participants in the study who are involved in the criminal justice system. Providing humanized information about each participant can have a “profound impact on responses to these individuals” (Harper et al., 2016, p. 535). Additionally, words matter in how those who are incarcerated are perceived (Tran et al, 2018), therefore, each summary enables the reader to follow the case study of traffickers through stigma-free accurate language, that includes, the narratives about the participants’ histories and their own complex relationship to exploitation as both recipients and enactors of abuse. Case-study analysis allows for reflection on “complex, situated, problematic relationships” asking “what can be learned here”? (Stake 2005, pp. 10–11). As historical context is central to case-study analysis, we examine participants’ perceptions of what facilitated their pathways into sex trafficking to begin to understand the barriers to fully exiting cycles of violence. This is followed by an analysis of emerging themes.

Angel (Participant 1):

Angel is a 36-year-old White woman from Mississippi, married with one son, with an associate’s degree. She was serving a five-month sentence for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated 22 times overall. Angel’s mother, who ran an escort service, had exposed her early to substance use and sexual economies. Her mother had a substance use disorder and had married a panderer (colloquially referred to as a “pimp”), who adored both Angel and her mother and never hurt her mother in any manner. At age 17, Angel realized she had a substance use problem and started dancing in strip clubs to support her addiction. When Angel became involved in sexual economies, her mother’s example taught her how to behave with her traffickers. To avoid being beaten and remain one of her trafficker’s “favorites,” she was required to earn at least $1,000 per day to give to her trafficker. Being a favorite also meant “telling on” the other “girls” if they were not doing what was expected of them and recruiting other women into sexual economies. Angel believed her upbringing and the intergenerational experiences of surviving in sexual economies contributed to her pathway into sex trafficking.

Dana (Participant 2):

Dana is a 35-year-old White woman from Missouri, with a seventh-grade education, married with nine children, none in her custody, and pregnant at the time of the interview. She was serving a 3½-month sentence for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated more than 56 times overall. Dana described her childhood as very abusive. At age eight she was raped by her stepfather. She was removed from her mother’s home and lived in multiple foster homes, where she was abused by her foster parents and by other children in the home. She ran away from foster homes to return to her mother, only to face a resumption of physical, sexual, and mental abuse. When Dana was 14, her mother sex-trafficked her by selling her in exchange for drugs. Dana then encountered several abusive sex traffickers. To avoid being beaten, she had to sexually service 30 to 40 men per day to earn her quota of $1,000 to $1,500. She also engaged in sex trafficking. After every attempt to leave her abusive conditions she was beaten and forced to return. Dana stated that she engaged in substance abuse to numb her pain and cope with her situation. She believed her upbringing and experiences with substance abuse had been pathways into sex trafficking.

Robin (Participant 3):

Robin is a 45-year-old American Indian woman from Texas, married with four children, with an associate’s degree. She was serving one month for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated more than 15 times overall. Robin described growing up in a dysfunctional family with a physically abusive mother. Her first memory of sexual molestation was by her mother’s boyfriend when she was in kindergarten. When Robin was 12, her mother trafficked her by having her sexually abused in exchange for rent money. Later, her mother gave her to a man in exchange for drugs. At age 28, she met a woman whom she thought was a friend, who introduced her to crack cocaine and took her to a “pimp” who pretended to promise her a job and “nice things.” After a short period of being treated well, she experienced what is understood as “cycles of violence,” in which requests quickly turn into demands and eventually into violence. After about six months of being trafficked, Robin realized that she had a substance use disorder, with no family, no money, and no place to go. She had to make her quota, usually $1,000 to $1,500 a day, or her abuser would beat her. In spite of her own experiences with abuse, eventually Robin became a trafficker. Robin believed her upbringing, experiences with substance use, abusive relationships, and an abusive mother were pathways into sex trafficking.

Missey (Participant 4):

Missey is a 32-year-old Black female from Texas, never married, with three children and an 11th-grade education. She had been incarcerated six times overall. Missey described growing up in a household that showed no love. At about age 16 she began participating in sexual economies to support herself and her nieces and nephews, who often came to her crying for food. She said, “I felt obligated to make money to feed them.” Eventually, Missey also became a sex trafficker. She believed growing up in a economically disenfranchised household and receiving no love from her mother had contributed to her pathway into sex trafficking.

Regina (Participant 5):

Regina is a 24-year-old woman from Texas who self-identified as Hispanic, never married, with no children and a tenth-grade education. She was serving four months for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated 16 times overall. She described how she grew up with a single-parent mother who did her best to raise her and her five siblings, but there was never enough money to meet the family’s obligations. When Regina was 17, a friend’s trafficker recruited her into sexual economies. She stated that at first, she believed the trafficker was kind to her. Her trafficker cared for her needs (food, clothes, a place to sleep) and gave her money she used to help her mother pay bills. She estimated servicing up to 50 men per day. She earned $1,000 to $1,500 per day, which she would give to her trafficker. Regina had tried to leave her abusive situation but, once she escaped, realized she had no job skills. Her trafficker would find her, beat her, and bring her back. She learned about Back Page, an escort service in which sex workers post an ad on the Internet and meet clients at a hotel to render “service.” This independent work was risky because if she went to jail, no one would bail her out, and consequently viewed that having a “pimp,” would take care of any legal issues that arose. Eventually, Regina began trafficking others. Regina believed that her pathway into trafficking was caused by a lack of money and education.

CJ (Participant 6):

CJ is a 53-year-old Black female from Texas, never married, with one daughter and a seventh-grade education. She was serving 1½ months for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated more than 30 times overall. CJ’s single-parent mother had owned an illegal gambling establishment. CJ began participating in sexual economies at age 19. She stated that she was not forced into it; she knew sex trafficking was illegal but believed it should be an individual’s choice as long as those involved were consenting adults. CJ said she believed that one “aged out” of sexual economies. She stated that the “johns” (a colloquial term for clients) would not pay as much for an “old head” as for a “fresh girl.” CJ believed that drugs, money, and abuse were her pathways into sex trafficking.

Jackie (Participant 7):

Jackie is a 49-year-old White woman from Arkansas, married, with no children and a master of arts degree. She was serving two months for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated ten times overall. Jackie grew up in a dysfunctional household where there was never enough money for necessities. Her mother experienced substance use disorders and worked for an escort service. At age eight Jackie was raped. She described becoming involved in sex trafficking as a means of survival. Strip clubs became her life and drugs her “best friend,” but she got tired of living in shelters and being abused. Feeling abandoned and depressed and yearning security, she met and married a man (“pimp”) she met at the strip club who pressured her into sex trafficking, where she earned $1,000 per day. Although her health was good, she had contracted several sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Jackie believed witnessing her mother’s drug struggle with addiction, choice to work as a stripper, and marrying a partner who was involved in sexual economies, led her to participate in the sex trafficking of others.

Trecia (Participant 8):

Trecia is a 51-year-old White woman from Illinois, twice divorced, with three children and an associate’s degree. Her current incarceration—three weeks for sex trafficking—was her first. Trecia grew up in a household with parents who were alcohol dependent. After leaving home she had acquired a decent, good-paying job. She owned a home, had fine cars, and owned an escort service. She began sex trafficking to support her own difficulties with substance use. She trafficked other women and contracted multiple STIs while participating in sex work. Trecia eventually lost everything she had worked for and informed the researcher that she welcomed police intervention. She believed being raised by parents with substance abuse disorders in a dysfunctional household had been her pathway into sex trafficking.

Penny (Participant 9):

Penny is a 56-year-old Black woman from Texas, never married, with two children and a ninth-grade education. She was serving four months for sex trafficking and had been incarcerated 20 times overall. Penny described growing up in an abusive household where she was raped by her father at the age of eight. She met her first trafficker at age 16 and started going to clubs, using drugs, and participating in sexual economies. She began using drugs to mentally prepare herself for “letting men use and abuse [her] body.” Although she earned thousands of dollars weekly, all of the money went to her trafficker. Once, when she was pregnant and hungry, her trafficker had beaten her for asking for food, illuminating the matrix of food insecurity that trafficked survivors experience (Fukushima, 2020). She made several attempts to leave sex trafficking, but her trafficker found her, beat her, and brought her back. She contracted STIs twice because many clients refused to use a condom, putting her life at risk. Penny described trying to get arrested by drawing police attention to herself. Eventually she began trafficking others. Penny believed being raped, using illicit drugs, and depending on men for money had been pathways into sex trafficking.

Betty (Participant 10):

Betty is a 27-year-old White woman from Texas, a high school graduate, married under common law with eight children, and pregnant at the time of the interview. She had been incarcerated 11 times, including seven times for participation in sexual economies. She described being raised in a dysfunctional household; both parents had substance use disorders and were physically abusive. She lived in multiple foster homes where she was abused by the foster parents. At age 17 she was raped and left for dead on a roadside. She ran away from a foster home and met a trafficker who promised to take care of her. She had 17 to 24 “pimps,” all of whom abused her. She recalled being beaten badly for not earning her $1,500 per day quota. She was required to service 50 to 60 men per day but could not keep any of her earnings. She reported having had multiple STIs. To survive, Betty participated in the trafficking of others. Police intervention had been her “saving grace.” Betty believed her abusive upbringing contributed to her pathway into sex trafficking.

Emerging Themes.

Participants’ responses to the interview questions revealed several emerging themes about being a convicted female sex trafficker attempting reentry to mainstream society. Participants expressed concern about the need to be prepared mentally, socially, and emotionally for reintegration. They believed there was a need to restructure perceptions of formerly incarcerated people in regard to acquiring a job and living in a safe neighborhood. Participants stressed the need for more reentry programs like the one they were participating in and for similar post-release programs to provide ongoing help. Finally, most participants saw a need for law enforcement to be better trained to recognize and deal with female sex traffickers and place them in the reentry process.

Agency and choice.

Not all participants felt they had made rational decisions either to violate the law or concerning the consequences and benefits of their crimes. Only one participant stated that she was not forced into sexual economies. Most stated that “they had no choice” or were coerced into sex trafficking. One participant (Angel) was remorseful: “I started out stripping; I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong because I wasn’t hurting nobody… I felt like the police needed to go arrest those people that are committing real crime.…” Eventually, Angel stopped earning enough to survive as a stripper and endured by means of intergenerational sexual economies. Echoing comments made by several interviewees, Robin stated: “I was a child and my mother made the choice for me. She gave me to a grown-ass man to fuck me.… This is my mother’s fault, not mine.…”

Negative labeling.

All participants believed they were stigmatized or negatively labeled. Most believed that they would always be viewed as an “ex-convict,” “whore,” or “prostitute.” Dana stated: “People look down on me because of my past, but…I just want the same respect that regular people get. I don’t want to be treated like a whore. … Because some of us…were children and didn’t have no choice, like me – I was eight years [old] when I was raped. I was 13 and prostituting. It ain’t my fault and the drugs [are] so addictive you can’t just quit overnight. So, until you’ve been through the abuse that we’ve been through, they can’t talk and call me a whore, ‘cause I’m not anymore. I’m really trying (crying).” Similarly, Trecia stated: “Sometimes people will look at me funny but I just don’t care anymore.… I just say OK, they just want some type of reaction and I’m not going to give it to them. I have to focus on being a better person and finding a job, but everybody won’t hire ex-cons and I work really hard.”

Unmet physical, emotional, and social needs.

All participants expressed the need for a stable living environment to successfully reintegrate into society. All interviewees stated that they needed a “second chance” at life, revealing that they had tried multiple times to leave sex trafficking but ultimately returned to the sexual economies that they perceived as their only means of survival. In response to the question “Were there times you considered leaving the trade? What happened?” Missey stated: “Yes, every time I try I fail (crying). Sometimes I say I’m gonna stop, then I turn around and do it again … and every time my nieces and nephews would say that they are hungry and there’s no food in the house, I be the one to get up and make it happen. It was a method of survival (crying).” Trecia stated: “Oh yeah, I didn’t have any money and was still using drugs. I figured [I] was going to do like my friend who got her degree while sex trafficking, and then I was going to leave, but I was still on drugs.… Money and drugs don’t mix. I made the money but I spent it fast on drugs.”

Pathways into sex trafficking.

Participants consistently perceived that substance use disorders, physical and emotional abuse, childhood exploitation by a parent/family member, limited economic and social support resources, and lack of education facilitated their pathways into sex trafficking. Dana stated: “Abuse, drugs, prostitution, I was forced into it at 13 or 14.… ” Robin stated: “A dysfunctional and neglectful family…lack of rules…lack of food… no guidance, no love. [It] was a lot of abuse… lot of blood, lot of bruises.” Regina stated: “Money, bills, drugs… When I was younger, we didn’t have so much money…and I always wanted to be older so I could have money.… Then I got introduced to a ‘pimp’ and I seen how much money I was giving him and we got busted by the Feds.”

Discussion

Although much research exists about sex trafficking by men, a limited body of research focuses exclusively on the lived experiences of female sex traffickers and addresses their perspective on their specific needs for successful reintegration (Belenko, 2006; Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Cobbina, 2010; Cooper-Sadlo et al., 2018; Davidson & Chesney-Lind, 2009; Deng, 2020; Hipp et al., 2008; Heilbrun et al., 2008; Leverentz, 2011). Our study illuminates issues that female sex traffickers face that could lead to reintegration failure if their specific needs are not met. Study participants described several facilitators of their pathways into sex trafficking, including lack of education, limited financial resources, substance use disorders, physical and emotional abuse, and childhood exploitation. Key barriers to successful reintegration included limited choice; negative labeling; and unmet physical, emotional, and social needs.

Limited choice influences trafficker agency. While some of those engaged in sex trafficking may, as conceptualized by Paternoster and Pogarsky (2009), be rational actors making calculated decisions, these interviews reveal how the conditions of the traffickers’ lives influenced their decision-making, wherein choice was limited due to their lived realities of substance use disorders, histories of abuse, and a lack of other realistic options. Rational-choice theory posits that people use available information to compare the costs and benefits of their decisions to commit a crime (Wheaton et al. 2010). However, while traffickers may know they are taking a risk, these interviews reveal that many interviewees felt coerced. Therefore, this study offers an important rational-choice theory insight.

A phenomenon similar to the mass feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which brought incest, domestic violence, and rape into public awareness, is occurring in the social sciences related to sex trafficking and social stigma. Study participants reported experiencing disapproval or discrimination because of their backgrounds. Fukushima et al. (2020) describe the multiplicity of stigmas that trafficking survivors face. The authors conceptualize that stigma comprises bias in access to care; barriers of shaming, shunning, and othering; and misidentification and mislabeling, with multiple levels of stigma furthering the deep misunderstanding of survivors and creating a culture of mistrust. Many traffickers were once trafficked themselves, suggesting a need to use theories that describe trafficking survivors to also understand traffickers. These negative labels and stigmatization can hinder reintegration of both sex traffickers and survivors, resulting in denied jobs, education, housing, and insurance (Grittner & Walsh, 2020; Pogorzelski et al., 2005; Yea, 2020).

Our results strengthen the current female sex-trafficking literature by identifying negative labeling or social stigma as a barrier to successful reintegration (Grittner & Walsh, 2020; Meshkovska, et al., 2015). However, as no longitudinal studies exploring the reintegration of female sex traffickers have been conducted to date, it is difficult to establish the degree to which negative labeling or stigma influences reintegration.

Study participants reported difficulty with reintegration due to multiple factors such as unmet basic needs, difficulty finding work, challenges reuniting with family and obtaining proper housing and vocational training, and health issues (Davies, 2012; Logan et al., 2009). Research has shown that these issues can contribute to unsuccessful reintegration for female sex traffickers and survivors (Dell et al. 2019; Meshkovska et al., 2015). Conversely, successful reintegration of female sex traffickers and survivors requires that basic needs (e.g., food, clothes, shelter, money) be met (Dell et al., 2019).

Study participants voiced concerns about being able to reconnect with family, a major part of healing. They may face disappointment when family members shun or refuse to accept them. Female sex traffickers’ children may feel anger, resentment, and abandonment, making reconnection harder and in some cases impossible (Meshkoysa et al., 2015).

Our study is not without limitations. First, it included only convicted sex traffickers from a women’s jail in southeast Texas. Other programs were not included because at the time this study was conducted the reentry program in which the interviewees were participating was the first of its kind at a jail in that region. Second, the study included only English-speaking women. It may have been strengthened by including the perspectives of traffickers whose preferred language was other than English. Another weakness was the participants’ credibility, as the PI had no way of corroborating their stories. Because the PI was a police officer, the marginalized participants may have been less likely to trust her, although the PI built trust through “ice-breaking” visits to make small talk about the participants’ families and release dates and allowed them without judgment to use language they were comfortable with. Because participants were explicitly informed that disclosure of participation in criminalizing activities would be reported, they were less likely to discuss more-recent criminalized activities. Lastly, due to limited resources and the sensitivity of the topic, two or more observers were not present at interviews to achieve inter-rater reliability.

In summary, this qualitative intrinsic case study examined the lived experiences of convicted female sex traffickers engaged in a program aimed at reintegration into mainstream society. This study fills a literature gap by allowing convicted female sex traffickers to speak openly about their lived experiences and needs for the achievement of successful reintegration. We examined participants’ financial and social needs and pathways into sex trafficking, shedding light on this understudied field by providing information from the convicted female sex trafficker’s perspective. This evidence will be valuable to law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and counselors alike.

Biography

Debra A. Love, PhD, a Criminal Justice Adjunct Professor at Lone Star College–University Park, recently retired after serving for more than two decades as a detective with the Houston Police Department. Her primary research interests are female sex trafficking, specific needs for successful reintegration, coping with separation from family, and inability to obtain employment and decent housing.

Annie I. Fukushima, PhD, MA, is an Associate Professor in the Division of Ethnic Studies with the School for Cultural and Social Transformation at the University of Utah. Her research explores the interdisciplinary framing of the role of the law and the legal system, the notion of “perfect victimhood,” iconic victims, visuals, discourse, court records, and policy. She is the author of the award-winning book, Migrant Crossings: Witnessing Human Trafficking in the US (Stanford University Press, 2019).

Tiana N. Rogers, PhD, MA, MA, is Director of Sorenson Impact Center's Data, Policy, and Performance Innovation team within the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Her research interest includes child welfare and maltreatment, welfare system improvement, public policy, social impact, and barriers to social services.

Ethan Petersen, BS, is a medical student at the University of Utah School of Medicine and graduate research scholar in the Men’s Health Inequities Research Lab in the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine. His research interests involve racial, economic, sexual, and gender disparities in access to, and quality of, healthcare.

Ellen Brooks, BS, is a Master of Public Health student at the University of Utah and graduate research scholar in the Men’s Health Inequities Research Lab in the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine. Her research interests include injustices in health, disparities in healthcare access and quality, as well as community-based participatory research.

Charles R. Rogers, PhD, MPH, MS, MCHES^®, is an Assistant Professor in the Public Health Division of the University of Utah School of Medicine, Associate Member of Huntsman Cancer Institute, Associate Member of the University of Michigan–Mixed Methods Program, and Founding Director of the Men’s Health Inequities Research Lab. His research interests include cancer and men’s health disparities, behavioral and community-based implementation science, mixed methods, and survey methodology.