Human Trafficking Protections for Individuals with Disabilities: A Legislative Review

Background and Purpose: In the 25 years since the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 was enacted, governments across the United States have introduced legislation to provide additional protections for human trafficking survivors and increase awareness of this crime. Most states have passed safe harbor laws which remove criminal liability for minor victims of commercial sexual exploitation. However, less is known regarding the extent to which such legislation includes another at-risk population: individuals with disabilities. This study answered the research question: how does anti-human trafficking legislation consider individuals with disabilities in legal protections, service provision, and interdisciplinary collaborative efforts?

Methods: Legislation from 50 states plus the District of Columbia was searched using Nexis Uni, an online legal research platform. Two authors randomly selected two states to pilot test a search string and independently extracted data into Microsoft Excel according to seven criteria. Eligible legislation included disabilities in: (a) definitions of human trafficking, (b) state-level collaborations (e.g., task forces, advisory councils), (c) assessments/services, (d) prevention/awareness efforts, (e) legal remedies for victims, (f) legal penalties for offenders, or (g) miscellaneous policies. From the initial search, the authors revised the search string to account for variation in terminology and pilot tested on three additional states. After reaching a consensus and finalizing the search string, the presenting author extracted the remaining states. A descriptive analysis was conducted by calculating frequencies of laws classified by the aforementioned criteria and U.S. Census regions.

Results: The search produced 846 statutes up to April 2025, of which 57 laws addressed one or more criteria. Fifteen states had zero legislation and 25 states had one law, with M = 1.12 (SD = 1.18). The most legislation was from the South (n = 18), while the Northeast had the least legislation (n = 9). Eighteen laws addressed definitions, with 10 states specifying coercion in human trafficking cases to include use of a person’s physical, cognitive, or mental impairment. Three laws addressed membership of state departments of disabilities on anti-human trafficking collaborations. Four laws addressed assessments/services (e.g., shelter admissions cannot discriminate based on disability), and six laws focused on prevention/awareness (e.g., human trafficking training for employees of state departments of disabilities). Twenty-three laws included disabilities in either legal remedies (e.g., statute of limitations) or penalties (e.g., higher felony class). Four laws were classified as miscellaneous (e.g., change of address for survivors with disabilities).

Conclusion and Implications: Individuals with disabilities remain underrepresented in anti-human trafficking legislation. While strides have been made, substantial gaps persist in the legal response to trafficking of persons with disabilities. The absence of clear legislative guidance has far-reaching implications, often limiting the ability of survivors with disabilities to access justice and essential support services and hindering equitable outcomes within the legal system. In alignment with social work ethical standards, social workers must understand the impact of legislative frameworks, or the lack thereof, on survivors with disabilities and actively engage in advocacy to promote systemic change.