Ambiguous Agency As a Diagnostic of Power: Examining Experiences of Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking-Involved Youth

Background and Purpose: The term “ambiguous agency” refers to children’s actions that go against “normative assumptions about the nature of childhood” (Bordonaro & Payne, 2012, p. 367). This concept has been used to frame the actions of youth considered to be “at-risk”, and to challenge traditional binary notions of victimization and agency. At-risk youth may engage in an array of antisocial behaviors as they navigate socio-political spaces. Adults generally view these behaviors as deviant and have utilized a variety of interventions to reform these youth so that they engage in acts of “responsible agency” instead. The purpose of this analysis was to explore how the concepts of ambiguous and responsible agency can illuminate adult perceptions of youth who have experienced domestic minor sex trafficking (DMST).

Methods: This qualitative study reviewed the state child welfare case records of eight young women: seven cisgender, one transgender; aged 13-18 at the time of the case review. All had participated in a residential treatment program for DMST. Case records were coded and analyzed iteratively using thematic analysis. To develop the initial codebook, four research team members comprehensively reviewed the case timelines of two youth. Researchers created a coding guide to identify recurring concepts within the timelines related to child maltreatment. A working codebook was developed to use for coding all eight interviews, using ATLAS.ti. Utilizing this codebook, three research assistants and the project coordinator coded the remaining cases. Following the initial analysis, the research team conducted a second level of analysis, this time looking at the data from the conceptual framework of ambiguous and responsible agency. Four research team members recoded the data with codes that emerged from this framework.

Findings: Analysis revealed three primary themes related to the concepts of ambiguous and responsible agency. First, the youth challenge traditional discourses of trafficking, which presuppose that victims lack agency; youth engage in acts that illustrate they do have agency, although they often do not exert their agency in a way that is viewed as desirable by service providers. Second, recorded interventions focused on the psychiatric stabilization of youth in a seeming effort to promote responsible agency. Third, despite the multiple levels of risk these youth encounter in their familial and structural environments, the responses of service providers tend to focus narrowly on reducing individual behaviors deemed problematic, including “promiscuity,” running away, or aggression. Consequently, this approach fails to acknowledge the intersectional factors that impact youths’ life experiences.

Conclusion and Implications: Under the current service model, youth involved in DMST are depicted as victims in need of individual treatment. Yet, perceiving youth simply in terms of victimization fails to recognize ways in which youth potentially exert their own power through ambiguous agency. Rather than viewing DMST-involved youth as victims in need of “saving” through treatment, service providers should work with youth to identify their needs. In addition, greater attention must be paid to the structural inequalities that drive youth to engage in behaviors that may be viewed by others as deviant.