Social Service Providers’ Knowledge of and Practice with LGBTQ+ People at Risk of Sex Trafficking

Abstract

Despite growing evidence suggesting that LGBTQ+ people are at risk of sex trafficking (ST), the ways in which social service providers encounter and address this population remain understudied. This study uses a directed content analysis approach to understand providers’ perceived knowledge of and practice with LGBTQ+ people at risk of ST. Authors conducted 24 semistructured, in-depth interviews of social service providers who worked with people who were sex trafficked (predominantly youth and young adults) in a region of a midwestern state. Providers had a range of knowledge and practice strategies, which included using outdated LGBTQ+ terminology and problematic assumptions about ST risk among LGBTQ+ individuals and also about how experiences of trauma influenced LGBTQ+ people’s sexuality and gender. Those who did encounter LGBTQ+ people at risk of ST suggested that there were gaps in services, particularly for trans clients. In addition, providers’ knowledge and practice strategies generally reflected an outdated understanding of gender and sexuality as stagnant and binary. Social service providers have an important opportunity to provide inclusive and affirming services to LGBTQ+ people at risk of ST. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for practice (e.g., language recommendations and provider trainings), organizations, and future research.

Social Workers as Allies? Gender Confirming Practices and Institutional Limitations in Youth Residential Homes

“…Last, but not least, the social workers suggest ways forward, thereby showing they are creating a trustful alliance. Overall, our findings are consistent with previous research that indicates that social care systems face difficulties meeting the needs of transgender and nonbinary youth (Erney & Weber, 2018;Gerassi & Pederson, 2022;Greeno et al, 2022;Kaasbøll et al, 2022;Lindroth, 2021;Mallon, 2019;Mountz et al, 2018;Schaub et al, 2022).…”

An Exploration of Sex Trading for Compensation and LGBTQ+ Inclusive Screening Practices: Perspectives of Young People who have Experienced Sex Trading and/or Homelessness

“…Our study sought to gain a nuanced understanding of sex trading and the ways in which sex trading and sex trafficking assessments can be improved, from the perspectives of young people with lived experiences. While beneficial for all youth, gender diverse youth may be parituclarly well positioned to benefit from implementing strategies as suggested by these findings and others ( Gerassi & Pederson, 2022 ; Hogan & Roe-Sepowitz, 2023 ). Our findings add to current literature suggesting that these strategies should not be used to force disclosures ( Stoklosa & Ash, 2021 ) but rather to guide providers in assessing sex trafficking risk and reducing potential harm.…”

“…Importantly, providers should introduce questions by also including reasons like “to support oneself” or “as a form of work” rather than only focusing on survival or because the person does not have any other options. Importantly, these assessments should never be done to force young people to disclose sex trading ( Gerassi & Pederson, 2022 ; Stoklosa & Ash, 2021 ), but rather to provide non-judgmental, inclusive opportunities to discuss any concerns, including sex trading and/or sex trafficking, and provide them options to reduce potential harms.…”

“…Similarly, organizations that do not address sexual and gender diversity may also be problematic. However, the extent to which recommended inclusive practices can increase comfort among young people with marginalized identities in discussing sexual activity, including sex trading, remains unclear ( Gerassi & Pederson, 2022 ; Hogan & Roe-Sepowitz, 2023 ).…”