Centering People with Lived Experiences As Social Service Leaders in Sex Trafficking, Sex Trading, and Youth Organizations: A Qualitative, Community-Engaged Study

Background: Extant scholarly and activist literature strongly recommends that organizations encountering sex trafficking and sex trades more broadly employ lived experience experts to enhance the relevance and utility of services. Lived experience experts include those who have been involved in or were at risk of sex trafficking, as well as sex trades more broadly, e.g., homeless/runaway youth engaged in “survival sex.” However, the process by which people with lived experiences become lived experience experts is not scientifically understood, particularly from diverse perspectives. The purpose of this study was to understand (1) how people with lived experiences become social service leaders; (2) conditions that influence their pathways; and (3) the extent to which leadership influences their well-being.

Methods: This study used an intersectional, community-engaged, constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 26 adults (ages 18+) with lived experiences who were currently employed in an organizational leadership role. Participants were ages 22-43; 50% people of color; 26% trans and gender expansive; and 62% lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, or queer. Twelve worked in anti-sex trafficking services. A co-created interview guide explored (1) pathways to leadership (e.g., informal and formal professional experiences, mentorship); (2) whether and how their identities (e.g., lived experiences along with race, gender, sexuality, etc.) and systems of oppression influenced their pathways; and (3) how their work influenced their perceived well-being. Participants chose one of three interviewers with diverse social positions. Interviews occurred on Zoom and were recorded, transcribed, and initially (line-by-line) and theoretically coded.

Results: Lived experience experts moved into various leadership roles, either while staying in or exiting the sex trades and/or housing instability. They approached their work with either a collectivist or individualistic lens to the work. Those who were collectivist were often organizing around a cause, e.g., improving community conditions, or sex trades policies. Those who had more individualistic approaches typically engaged with anti-trafficking organizations and often began by being asked to share their stories. A cycle of internal and external validation (e.g., mentor affirmation; advocacy successes; increased self-worth) and invalidation (e.g., insufficient or lack of pay; exploitation of their stories; movement infighting; identity-based exclusion) emerged. Such experiences often led to conflicts within the organization, which were perceived differently depending on participants’ lens to the work. When conflict was not repaired, participants reported differential ruptures from their work communities and moved to another organization or formed their own. Finally, those whose work involved advocating for decriminalization of the sex trades experienced additional barriers compared to those whose work was situated in anti-trafficking or youth housing contexts.

Conclusions: Lived experience experts are critical to social services, yet there may be insufficient funding structures, mentorship supports, and leadership development practices and policies to support them. Left unaddressed, lived experience experts, especially those who are multiply minoritized, may transition to other roles and/or out of advocacy movements. Future research should examine the perspectives of lived experience experts who have left the field, and to develop interventions that support lived experience experts in their professional goals.