Sex Trafficking of Male Minors in Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Communities

Background and Purpose: Even though there is evidence that sex trafficking of male minors occurs (Curtis et al., 2008), research on community and system responses to sex trafficking of male minors is scant (Reid, 2012). Because the majority of sex trafficking of minors (STM) victims are females, service providers may overlook the need to screen for STM among males and a minority of service providers work with male victims (Friedman, 2013; IOM, 2013). The purpose of this analysis is to better understand how agencies intersect with and respond to male victims of STM.

Methods: This analysis is part of a larger study that examined awareness, knowledge, and experiences of working with youth trafficked in commercial sex among professionals who serve at-risk youth and/or crime victims/offenders in metropolitan and non-metropolitan communities in one state (N = 323). Telephone surveys comprised of close-ended and open-ended questions took, on average, 29 minutes. All responses to open-ended questions were analyzed for themes by the research team.  

Results: Half of the surveyed professionals (49.8%, n = 161) had worked with a minor they knew or suspected had been exploited in commercial sex, and among these professionals, 55.9% (n = 90) had worked with at least one male victim. Among the professionals who had worked with victims, the median number of victims was 6, and 21.0% of the victims professionals worked with were male. Because most of the professionals who worked with male victims also worked with female victims, we focused analysis on professionals who reported that the majority of the victims with whom they worked were male (16.1%, n = 26). The vast majority of the male victims were U.S. citizens/residents (96.6%), trafficked in the state (97.6%), exploited in prostitution (84.3%). A majority of male victims (62.3%) were exploited in commercial sex in non-metropolitan communities. More than one-third (34.7%) were exploited in pornography. Analysis of open-ended themes focused on discussion on cases that we could clearly identify as describing male victims. In more than half of these cases the professional reported the trafficker was a family member of the victim and sex was exchanged for drugs, money, or a place to stay by the trafficker. There were no significant differences by gender of victims in themes identified related to vulnerabilities, the trafficker-offender relationship, the day-to-day operations of traffickers, and the ways in which traffickers exploited children in commercial sex.

Conclusions and Implications: In the current study, about 1 in 5 victims the professionals had worked with were male. The ways in which male youth were trafficked were similar to the ways in which female youth were trafficked. A greater understanding of the needs of male victims is needed to modify and develop appropriate services.