Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
in Georgia

Service delivery and legislative recommendations for state and local policy makers

PDF Version for Printing

Executive Summary

Atlanta has been recognized as a center for child prostitution, and hundreds of children are commercially sexually exploited throughout Georgia every month.  Although the Mayor of Atlanta and a number of different state agencies and private child advocacy organizations have taken important steps toward addressing this issue, Georgia's current laws and practices are inconsistent in their treatment of these children.

Georgia has developed a strong set of criminal laws to prosecute those who commercially sexually exploit children, such as pimps, human traffickers, and the johns or customers who pay for sex with children.  Unfortunately, however, their child victims are also currently subject to prosecution, and the state's current laws and practices do not provide for a way to link these children to services without subjecting them to arrest and detention.  Research demonstrates that these children have been victimized at a number of levels and that prosecution only compounds the harms they have experienced.  A more victim-centered, service-based approach is needed to better treat those who have been exploited, and to prevent future exploitation.

The federal government has recognized the need for law enforcement efforts to be combined with victims' services.  Commercial sexual exploitation of children that affects interstate or foreign commerce or occurs in federal territories is defined as human trafficking under federal law, and victims are entitled to a number of benefits, including freedom from detention, rehabilitative services, and special immigration status.  The federal government recognizes that states have an important role to play in ending human trafficking, and has promulgated model state legislation which it encourages states to adopt.  Trafficking victims' advocates have proposed valuable additions and amendments to the model legislation to make it more victim-centered and services-focused.

The United States is also a party to a number of international agreements which recognize that people under eighteen years of age who are involved in prostitution are victims of exploitation in need of services and protection, rather than offenders to be prosecuted.  These treaties require outreach, efforts to prevent victimization from occurring, and education, mental and physical health and other services for victims.

Other jurisdictions have developed a number of different service delivery models for reaching commercially sexually exploited children.  None of these has been around long enough to have a proven track record of success and each has its strengths and its drawbacks.  Las Vegas uses a prosecution model that its advocates believe provides tools to help catch and convict those who commercially sexually exploit children.  However, the child victims suffer the negative effects of detention in order for authorities to achieve this goal.  While victims' services are provided, they are conditioned on the child's willingness to cooperate, so many children still go without the help they need.  Boston uses a child abuse model that seems more successful at identifying victims and linking them to services, but because there is no threat of prosecution, children may opt out of services or refuse to cooperate in the prosecution of their exploiters.  San Francisco uses a hybrid model that provides some of the benefits of the two other approaches, but its reliance on arrest and detention still has harmful consequences for child victims.

Both Illinois and New York have taken legislative approaches to the problem, and have recently passed anti-human trafficking legislation.  However, both have their drawbacks for use in the fight against the commercial sexual exploitation of children.  Illinois' statute contains broad language that would enable virtually all prostituted children to be considered victims of trafficking, but it includes insufficient service provisions to aid those victims.  In contrast, New York's statute is narrower and would not cover all child victims of sexual exploitation, but it does a better job providing at least an initial assessment of each victim and referrals to available services.  Neither state has destigmatized the commercial sexual exploitation of children by removing it from the definition of prostitution altogether.  New York has a pending bill, the Safe Harbor Act, which would allow courts to classify these children as people in need of supervision rather than as delinquents, but the children could still be arrested and initially detained.

Based on our review of the current legal framework and service-delivery and legislative approaches taken in other jurisdictions, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic recommends that Georgia take the following steps to better protect and treat children exposed to commercial sexual exploitation:

1. Create a minimum age for the offenses of prostitution and masturbation for hire. 
2. Amend Georgia's mandatory child abuse reporting law to increase identification of children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation. 
3. Amend Georgia's anti-human trafficking statute to more closely follow the State Model Law.
4. Create a regional assessment center and safe house.
5. Expand education, prevention and outreach efforts so that at-risk children can avoid being exploited and prostituted children can receive services without having to be arrested.
6. Train professionals from a wide variety of disciplines to recognize signs of commercial sexual exploitation in children in order to identify victims by means other than arrest. 
7. Coordinate a multidisciplinary response to children identified as victims of prostitution. 
8. Fill in the gaps of Georgia's continuum of care. 
9. Build inter-county communication and cooperation. 

I.  Introduction

Hundreds of children are commercially sexually exploited through prostitution in Georgia each month.^[1]  The average age of these children is fourteen and a half years old, and most of them started prostitution at age thirteen or fourteen.^[2]  Atlanta is a hub for this activity, and has been identified by federal law enforcement officials as one of the fourteen U.S. cities with the highest rates of child prostitution.^[3]  However, the problem is not limited to the Atlanta area; children are being commercially sexually exploited throughout the state.^[4] 

While some argue that adult prostitution is a victimless crime,^[5] the same cannot be said about child prostitution.  Research studies show that child prostitutes are victims at a number of levels.  First, most have been victimized before ever engaging in prostitution.  Common risk factors for child prostitution include:  conflicts at home, parental neglect, physical or sexual abuse, homelessness, poverty, housing instability, educational failure, emotional problems, and running away from home.^[6]  Local professionals who treat commercially sexually exploited children in Georgia note that early sexual abuse is the most common risk factor.^[7]  Second, abusive practices are employed to lure children into prostitution.  Many commercially sexually exploited youth are psychologically manipulated and physically coerced into [the] ‘occupation' by pimps,^[8] drug dealers, or gangs.^[9]  Finally, once they have been exploited, these children face many ongoing consequences.^[10]  They are often trapped in a cycle of violence, facing repeated beatings and degradation at the hands of pimps and johns.^[11]  In addition, they face a high risk of pregnancy, STDs, and HIV,^[12] have a greater chance of developing psychiatric disorders and attempting suicide,^[13] and have an increased likelihood of drug or alcohol addiction.^[14]

Legal analysis supports the view that child prostitutes are victims.  Georgia's definition of sexual abuse indicates that a child under eighteen years of age who has been employed or used for sexual gratification by an adult more than five years her senior is a victim of child abuse.^[15]  Further, under Georgia law, children under the age of sixteen lack the legal capacity to consent to sexual intercourse,^[16] or to engage in employment that might be injurious to the health or morals of such a minor,^[17] and thus are not legally capable of consenting to prostitution.^[18]  Federal^[19] and international law^[20] make clear that prostitutes under the age of eighteen are victims rather than offenders.^[21] 

Most child prostitution also falls under current legal definitions of human trafficking.  Though definitions vary, most encompass children under eighteen years of age who have been induced or coerced into sexual exploitation.^[22]  Thus, these children are also victims of human trafficking. Of course, the problem of human trafficking is one that sweeps far beyond the sexual exploitation.  It involves all kinds of forced labor, and affects both children and adults around the world.  Although we recognize that trafficking is a critical human rights issue that needs to be addressed in all of its manifestations, because of the purpose and scope of this Paper, our discussion here will focus on trafficking as it relates to the commercial sexual exploitation of children.^[23]

Unfortunately, while the social science research and general legal framework clearly indicate that child prostitutes are victims, under current Georgia law they can still be treated as offenders, and subjected to arrest, detention, and other forms of punishment.^[24]  Furthermore, even when these children are recognized as victims, they often go without the help they need because Georgia does not have a comprehensive continuum of care capable of addressing their unique service needs.^[25]

Due to the efforts of Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, the work of public agencies, non-governmental organizations and child advocates, and recent coverage by national and local media, community awareness has increased regarding the need to take aggressive steps to end the commercial sexual exploitation of children in Georgia, and to provide appropriate services to children who have been victimized.^[26]  In 2005, the Atlanta Women's Agenda released the groundbreaking report Hidden in Plain View. ^[27]  That report explained the problem of commercial sexual exploitation of young girls in Atlanta, brought the importance of addressing the issue home by providing stories of real victims, and identified Atlanta's strengths and areas of need related to this problem. 

Hidden in Plain View laid an excellent foundation for work in this area, but it was not intended to provide legal analysis, and it limited its scope to girls being exploited in the Atlanta area.  Because this issue is impacted by many different laws at the state, federal and international level, and because many potential solutions may involve legal components, in-depth legal analysis is needed to help guide advocates' efforts. This Paper builds on the foundation laid by Hidden in Plain View by providing that legal analysis, and by expanding the scope of the discussion to include all child victims, including boys, across all of Georgia. 

Specifically, Part II of this paper explains current Georgia laws and practices that impact commercially sexually exploited children.  Part III explores the larger national and international legal framework surrounding this issue.  Part IV then analyzes non-legislative service-delivery approaches taken by other jurisdictions to address the problem, and Part V analyzes innovative legislative approaches taken by other states.  Finally, Part VI recommends legislative, policy and service initiatives to protect and support Georgia's children.

II.  Current Georgia Law and Practice

Prostitution has traditionally been regulated by the states, and Georgia is no exception.^[28]  Georgia has a number of criminal laws targeting prostitution and related offenses.  How these laws are interpreted and enforced has a direct impact on children who are commercially sexually exploited, both in terms of how they are treated themselves, and in terms of the risks and punishments the law creates for those who exploit them.  Additionally, a number of other current Georgia laws and practices impact the victims and perpetrators of commercial sexual exploitation of children, including the state's child abuse reporting statutes and practices, its anti-human trafficking statute, and its existing services for victims.  This section will look at each of these areas of law and practice in turn.

Georgia's Prostitution Statute

Georgia's prostitution statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-6-9, states that a person commits the offense of prostitution when he or she performs or offers or consents to perform a sexual act, including but not limited to sexual intercourse or sodomy, for money or other items of value.^[29]  The statute does not have a minimum age provision, and thus includes all people, not distinguishing between adults and minors.  This is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the lack of a minimum age is inconsistent with Georgia's own views about the sexual autonomy of minors.  Currently, the age of consent for sexual activity in Georgia is sixteen.^[30]  Adults who engage in consensual^[31] non-commercial sexual behavior with individuals under the age of consent are subject to criminal prosecution, while the individual who is under the age of consent is not.  For example, when a person violates O.C.G.A. § 16-6-3 by committing statutory rape, the statute provides that the victim will not be convicted.^[32] 

  In the arena of commercial sexual exploitation, however, the law does not protect individuals under the age of consent; rather their behavior is criminalized.  This is logically inconsistent.  An American Bar Association (ABA) survey of state legislatures found that the reasons states prescribe an age of consent are: (1) to protect minors from sexual intercourse; (2) to protect minors below a certain age from predatory, exploitative sexual relationships; (3) to prevent or reduce teen pregnancy; (4) to reduce the number of young mothers on welfare; and (5) to promote responsibility and accountability in sexuality and parenting.^[33]  All of these purposes are better served by providing child victims of commercial sexual exploitation with the same protection afforded to other children who engage in early sexual behavior and criminalizing the adults who take advantage of them.

Of course, prostitution is different from statutory rape because of the economic element involved.  To some degree, what is really criminalized is not the sexual activity, but the commercial transaction.  However, Georgia also recognizes that children lack the capacity to enter into many commercial arrangements.  For example, in Georgia, contracts are not enforceable against children under eighteen because of their lack of legal capacity to make binding commitments.^[34]  Further, children under the age of sixteen are not allowed to make their own decisions about employment. They cannot hold employment dangerous to life and limb or injurious to [their] health or morals at all,^[35] and must receive permission in the form of a work certificate from responsible adults to hold other types of employment.^[36]  Thus, children have no more legal capacity to enter into the economic element of prostitution than they do to enter its sexual element.

In addition to children's lack of legal capacity to commit the offense of prostitution, the state's lack of a minimum age for the offense is also troubling because of the effects of prosecution on child victims.  Children who have been commercially sexually exploited already suffer from feelings of guilt and worthlessness, which can be compounded by the message implicit in prosecution that the child has done something bad.^[37]  Prosecution also generally involves detention, either before or after the judicial proceeding, and detention results in emotional and psychological trauma for the child, increasing the child's feelings of low self-esteem and complicating the recovery process.^[38]

Finally, the lack of a minimum age in the statute is troubling because it conflicts with international agreements to which the U.S. is a party.^[39]  As will be explained in Part III, those agreements clearly recognize that prostitutes under the age of eighteen are victims in need of services rather than offenders in need of punishment.^[40]

While the Georgia prostitution statute's inclusion of commercially sexually exploited children as offenders is inconsistent with other state and international laws protecting children as well as best practices for treatment, Georgia is not alone in this inconsistency.  Today, only Michigan has a statute limiting the criminal liability of an individual under a certain age for commercial sexual activity.  The Michigan prostitution statute states that a person sixteen years of age or older who accosts, solicits, or invites another person in a public place or in or from a building or vehicle, by word, gesture, or any other means, to commit prostitution or to do any other lewd or immoral act, is guilty of a crime.^[41]  This limits criminal liability to individuals over the age of sixteen, even though the age of consent for sexual activity in Michigan is thirteen.^[42]  The remaining forty-nine other states do not currently use age to limit the definition of prostitution.

Georgia's Other Prostitution-related Statutes

In addition to its primary prostitution statute, Georgia also has other prostitution-related offenses.  One of these, the masturbation for hire statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-6-16, poses problems similar to those described above.  This statute criminalizes physical stimulation that does not include intercourse, but which is similarly exploitative.  Like the prostitution statute, this offense does not specify a minimum age.

The state's other prostitution-related statutes provide tools for prosecuting those who commercially sexually exploit children.  These include:

• Keeping a place of prostitution (O.C.G.A. § 16-6-10): This statute criminalizes a person who having or exercising control over the use of any place or conveyance knowingly grants or permits the use of it for prostitution.^[43]  It can be used to prosecute pimps who provide a venue for exploitation, but it is also broad enough to be used against motels or other businesses which allow their rooms to be used for prostitution if they are aware that prostitution is the purpose of the visit.^[44]

• Pimping (O.C.G.A. § 16-6-11): Pimping is defined broadly under the Georgia statute to include offering to procure a prostitute or arranging a meeting for the purposes of prostitution; directing or transporting someone to prostitution; taking money or other things of value derived from prostitution, not as part of an exchange; and profiting from aiding, abetting, counseling or commanding prostitution.^[45]  Thus, this statute covers all of the acts generally associated with pimps, and also reaches further to include others such as taxi drivers or hotel concierges who bring or direct people to prostitutes. 

• Pandering (O.C.G.A. § 16-6-12): A person commits the offense of pandering when he or she solicits a person to perform an act of prostitution in his or her own behalf or in behalf of a third person or when he or she knowingly assembles persons at a fixed place for the purpose of being solicited by others to perform an act of prostitution.^[46]  This statute covers johns as well as anyone who might assist the john in obtaining the prostitute.

Though generally the three offenses outlined above are aggravated misdemeanors, when they involve the prostitution of children under eighteen years of age the offenses are felonies carrying penalties of five to twenty years in prison and fines of up to ten thousand dollars.^[47]  Additionally, when an offender is convicted of pandering, the clerk of the court is supposed to publish a legal notice which includes the offender's mug shot in the legal organ of the appropriate county.^[48]

Any money used for or gained from pimping children under eighteen is forfeited to the state, and at least fifty percent of funds so obtained are to be used for services for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation.^[49]  Additionally, any motor vehicle used in an act resulting in conviction for pimping of a child under eighteen or a third conviction for either pimping or pandering involving a prostitute of any age is also subject to forfeiture.^[50]

Note that the increased punishments for those who exploit children apply to those who pimp or pander children under the age of eighteen, even though the age of consent in Georgia is sixteen.  This supports the view that it is not just children's lack of capacity to consent to intercourse which is troubling to people about this issue.  Our statutes criminalizing exploiters recognize, as our statute criminalizing prostitution does not yet, that children under eighteen are uniquely vulnerable to this type of exploitation, and require additional protection. 

Georgia's Current Law Enforcement Practices

In Atlanta, the Fulton County Juvenile Court has adopted a practice of not prosecuting children for prostitution, and law enforcement officers have received training on the need to treat these children as victims rather than offenders.^[51]  However, the practice and training have not prevented children from being arrested on prostitution charges.  Fulton County Juvenile Court records show that in 2006 prostitution complaints were filed against eleven different girls who were between the ages of fourteen and sixteen.^[52]  This number may not reflect the total number of arrests, however.  Cheron Crouch, Director of Training and Education for the Juvenile Justice Fund, reports that the offense is used all the time. . . . All of the high priority cases come in with a charge of Prostitution. . . .The charge is usually dropped to disorderly conduct and that is what is shown in [the court's data tracking software].^[53] 

Thus, young girls are still being arrested and detained in Atlanta for prostitution.  Additionally, when the charge is knocked down, the child is often still prosecuted for the lesser charge.  This means that many Atlanta children find themselves in the juvenile justice system as a result of their commercial sexual exploitation, despite agency and court-level initiatives to prevent this.  Moreover, children are prostituted across the state, not just in Atlanta, and not all areas follow the same policies or provide the same training as Fulton County.  Data from the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and six of the state's independent juvenile courts show legal actions against an additional twenty-one children for prostitution in 2006.^[54] 

Further, many victims of commercial sexual exploitation are not taken into custody for prostitution at all.  Instead, they are processed for status offenses^[55] and probation violations, making it difficult for the juvenile justice system to assess the regularity of child prostitution's occurrence and identify the service program needs of this population.^[56] 

Georgia's Child Abuse Reporting Statute and Current Practices

A better way to identify child victims of commercial sexual exploitation and link them to services would be to use the process already established for the identification of abused children.  Georgia Code section 19-7-5 requires a wide variety of professionals who interact with children, including doctors, psychologists, counselors, social workers, teachers, school administrators, child care providers, and law enforcement personnel, to make a report to child protective services if they reasonably believe that a child has been abused.^[57]  These professionals, who are commonly referred to as mandated reporters, base their determination of whom to report as abused on the statute's definition of child abuse.

Georgia's definition of child abuse in O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5 includes two different sub-definitions which could encompass commercially sexually exploited children.  The first is its definition of sexual abuse.  Section 19-7-5 defines sexual abuse as a person's employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing any minor who is not that person's spouse to engage in [a variety of sexual activities].^[58]  The sexual act involved in prostitution is child abuse under this broad definition, because the john is certainly a person employing or using the child in sexual activity, and a pimp would be a person inducing, enticing, or coercing the child to engage in the activity. 

However, the statute also provides a separate sub-definition for sexual exploitation which specifically mentions prostitution.  This sub-definition encompasses the sexual exploitation of any person under the age of eighteen,^[59] but defines sexual exploitation narrowly as conduct by a child's parent or caretaker who allows, permits, encourages, or requires [the] child to engage in Prostitution….^[60]  Thus, if the child is encouraged or forced into prostitution by someone other than a parent or caretaker without the parent or caretaker's permission, the exploitation is not child abuse under this sub-definition.

The presence of this second limited sub-definition is confusing.  It could be interpreted to provide an additional ground to report a child as abused, for example where a mandated reporter knows a child is being encouraged by a parent to engage in prostitution, but does not know whether or not a sexual act has yet occurred.  On the other hand, the presence of this sub-definition could be viewed as a carve out from the broader sexual abuse definition, leading mandated reporters to believe that they do not have to report sexual exploitation unless a parent or a caretaker is involved.  This carve out interpretation is strengthened when the mandatory reporting statute is read in combination with the criminal statute which allows children to be prosecuted for the offense of prostitution irrespective of their age.  When read together, the criminal statute and the specific limitation on the definition of sexual exploitation in the mandatory reporting statute seem to indicate that unless a parent or caretaker is responsible, a child in prostitution is an offender rather than a victim of child abuse.  Therefore, the statutory language would need to be corrected or clarified in order to make mandated reporting an effective tool for identifying commercially sexually exploited children.

Even if the statute were to clearly make all commercial sexual exploitation child abuse, however, under current Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) policies a report would result in limited assistance for such a child unless the exploitation involved a parent or caretaker.  Child abuse reports come to the Child Protective Services (CPS) section of DFCS.  CPS screens out any reports that do not involve improper actions or negligence by a parent or caregiver.^[61]  This is because the primary purpose of CPS is to investigate abuse within families, and to intervene with the help of law enforcement or the courts when necessary.^[62]  Thus, CPS's investigative resources are focused on reports that could lead to court intervention in a family.

However, when screening out a case, CPS can refer the reporter or the family to appropriate services.  Some services which are geared toward preventing problematic family issues from escalating to the point of requiring CPS intervention^[63] are provided at no cost to the family, ^[64] but these services are subject to strict time and cost limits.^[65]  Referrals for other types of services can be given, but case management is not provided, and families are responsible for any associated fees.

In sum, under current policies, if CPS received a report of commercial sexual exploitation of a child which did not involve a parent or caretaker, the child and his or her family might receive a referral to a service provider if the CPS worker had information on a provider that would be appropriate, but the family would be on their own with respect to following up to actually get the services and paying any fees that the service provider might charge.  Therefore, if mandated reporting is to be a useful tool in identifying commercially sexually exploited children and linking them to services, CPS policies need to change to provide a response that would do more to ensure these children get the services they need. 

Georgia's Anti-human Trafficking Statute

In addition to its prostitution-related statutes and its child abuse reporting statutes, Georgia has recently enacted an anti-human trafficking statute which may also be used to impact the commercial sexual exploitation of children.  In April 2006, the Georgia General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, SB 529, known as the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act.^[66]  One of the things this bill did was to add a new section to the crimes and offense section of the Georgia Code, creating two new human trafficking offenses: trafficking a person for labor servitude, and trafficking a person for sexual servitude.^[67] 

This new trafficking Code section is loosely based on the Model Anti-Trafficking Criminal Statute promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice.^[68]  However, it does not duplicate that Model's definitions, and, in fact, defines very few of its key terms.^[69]  The new section, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-46, does not delineate sexual servitude of a minor as a separate offense, but rather includes it under the broader offense of trafficking a person for sexual servitude.  Sexual servitude is defined as:

(A)  Any sexually explicit conduct. . . for which anything of value is directly or indirectly given, promised to, or received by any person, which conduct is induced or obtained by coercion or deception or which conduct is induced or obtained from a person under the age of 18 years; or

(B)  Any sexually explicit conduct. . . which is performed or provided by any person, which is induced or obtained by coercion or deception or which conduct is induced or obtained from a person under the age of 18 years.^[70]

This definition is both too broad and too narrow.  It is too broad because induced or obtained is not defined.  A standard dictionary definition of induced is: (1) to move by persuasion or influence; or (2) to call forth or bring about by influence or stimulation.^[71]  If such a broad definition is used, Part (B) could be read to encompass all sexual activity involving a minor, because nearly all consensual sexual activity is brought about by either persuasion or stimulation.  The effect of this reading would be to basically replace the statutory rape statute, making sex with a minor a felony in all instances and raising the age of consent to eighteen.^[72]

The definition is too narrow because if induced or obtained is given a narrow reading some young prostitutes would not be considered trafficking victims.  Specifically, those under eighteen who prostitute voluntarily, working without a pimp and proactively making offers to johns might be excluded.  Under the current version of the statute that is not much of a problem, because the current version only criminalizes the trafficker; it does not provide services for victims.  Thus, the only practical effect of a narrow reading of the current statute would be that not every john would be guilty of human trafficking.

Johns could still be convicted of pandering, however, so the real effects would be with respect to sentencing and forfeiture.  As previously discussed, under Georgia's pandering statute, a john can be sentenced to five to twenty years in jail and a fine of up to ten thousand dollars.^[73]  If sentenced under the anti-human trafficking statute, [a]ny person who commits the offense of trafficking a person for labor or sexual servitude against a person who is under the age of 18 years . . . shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.^[74]  Thus, the anti-trafficking statute has a harsher minimum sentence of imprisonment, but the same maximum sentence, and unlike the pandering statute does not include fines.  The anti-trafficking statute also does not provide for forfeiture of a motor vehicle used for the offense, which is provided for after a third conviction for pandering.^[75]  Therefore, under the current statutory scheme, the under-inclusiveness of the definition of sexual servitude may be acceptable, because a conviction under the pandering statute might be preferable as it allows greater sentencing flexibility and provides for forfeiture.

However, the new anti-trafficking statute is also flawed in that unlike model legislation, which will be discussed in Part III, it does not provide for restitution, any victim services, a civil cause of action for victims, or prevention efforts.^[76]  Although it is an additional tool for prosecuting those who exploit children, without these addition provisions, the anti-trafficking statute adds little to Georgia's statutory ability to protect child victims of sexual exploitation.  On the other hand, if these provisions were added, the under-inclusiveness of the statutory definition described above could become problematic, and the statute would need to be amended to ensure all commercially sexually exploited children would be eligible for these benefits.

Services Currently Available in Georgia

 Hidden in Plain View provided a detailed review of available services in Georgia for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation.^[77]  The service landscape has not changed significantly since that time, so this Paper will not attempt to restate that excellent work.  However, when considering statutory and policy changes that would make Georgia's response to commercial sexual exploitation more services-focused, it is useful to consider the services already available in the state, and to evaluate the capacity of these services to handle additional cases.

Georgia has one of the few residential treatment facilities in the United States specifically tailored for the needs of girls who have been commercially sexually exploited.  Angela's House provides a safe, secure place where girls can heal, using a combination of traditional counseling, group therapy, and 12-step programs, and innovative programs like equine therapy, which helps the girls learn boundaries and trust, and exercises with a local acrobatics troupe which help the girls develop healthy feelings about their bodies.^[78] 

Though it is an outstanding service provider, Angela's House has a very limited ability to serve Georgia's children's needs.  The facility only has six beds, and the average stay for the girls it serves is between three and six months,^[79] so it can only accommodate a few of the hundreds of children who are commercially sexually exploited in Georgia each month.^[80]  Additionally, it does not take boys, and it cannot treat girls that are extremely aggressive or suicidal, or those with extremely low IQs.^[81]  Currently, children who have been identified as victims of commercial sexual exploitation and who cannot be served by Angela's House are either held in secure juvenile detention facilities, returned home with few, if any, specialized services provided to prevent them from returning to prostitution,^[82] or placed in non-secure youth facilities, group homes, or foster care.^[83]

Specialized care for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation is critical for a number of reasons.  First, because many of these children have been deeply indoctrinated by their exploiters,^[84] they tend to run back to the streets if they have the opportunity.^[85]  Thus, any non-secure residential facility housing them must have around-the-clock monitors at the doors who will discourage children from leaving.  Second, because these children have often experienced high levels of trauma on a repeated basis, they can be difficult to reach.  This repeated trauma can make them appear tough and abrasive, which could lead an untrained counselor to turn away.  As one child advocate in Atlanta put it, These girls are just different.  They are hardened from the streets.  Their trauma is huge and much different than the trauma of a child who suffers from depression or an isolated incident of abuse.^[86]  Finally, children who have been commercially sexually exploited face stigmatization if placed with children who have not been similarly victimized.  According to Dr. Lois Lee, President of Children of the Night, one of the nation's leading treatment programs for this population, when girls who have been in prostitution are mixed with other children in youth residences or other programs, they are often called names, shunned, or otherwise mistreated.  As a result, children in non-specialized facilities are often forced to face the choice of remaining silent about their abuse or being stigmatized by their peers.^[87]

Thus, while Georgia does currently have some excellent resources for treating commercially sexually exploited children, more specialized services are needed.  Additionally, there is also a need for more prevention efforts.  Although several Atlanta-area organizations, including the Center to End Adolescent Sexual Exploitation (CEASE), have developed educational programs aimed at preventing commercial sexual exploitation, these programs are not currently fully funded.^[88]

Summary of Current Georgia Law and Practice

Georgia has developed a strong set of criminal laws to prosecute those who commercially sexually exploit children.  Our anti-human trafficking, pimping, pandering and related statutes provide stringent penalties for not just pimps and johns, but also for others who aid them and profit from the exploitation of children.  Unfortunately, however, the child victims are also currently subject to prosecution, and the state's current laws and practices do not provide for a way to link these children to services without subjecting them to arrest and detention.  In order to better serve and protect these children, Georgia needs to create a less punitive way to identify victims, such as using the mandatory child abuse reporting system, and to expand the availability of services tailored to these children's unique needs.

III.  Federal and International Law Impacting Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

While states are the primary sources of laws regulating prostitution, they are not the only sources to consider.  Under our federal system of government, if there are applicable federal laws or if the United States is party to international agreements on the subject, these will preempt state law when the two conflict.^[89]  Therefore, state legislators and other policy makers need to be aware of the federal and international legal framework in order to avoid such conflict. 

There are a couple of other good reasons to look at federal and international laws.  First, federal laws often involve the allocation of federal funds.  Thus, a careful examination of federal laws can uncover potential federal funding sources that can help the state provide necessary services.  Second, the national and international communities bring together diverse voices which can provide additional insights into how to address a complex issue like the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Federal Legal Framework

Human trafficking has elements of slavery and interstate commerce which bring it within the purview of the U.S. Congress.^[90]  The federal government has included trafficking-related child prostitution in its broader efforts against human trafficking.^[91]  In October 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA),^[92] the first comprehensive federal law designed to prevent human trafficking, protect and assist its victims, and to prosecute its perpetrators.^[93]  Under the TVPA and the subsequent Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPRA),^[94] a child is a victim of a severe form of trafficking if he or she is induced to perform a commercial sex act as a result of sex trafficking before having obtained the age of eighteen.^[95]  Sex trafficking is defined as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.^[96] 

The TVPA and TVPRA consider child prostitutes who fit the above definition as victims of a serious crime. These victims are entitled to a number of protections and services, including freedom from federal detention in facilities inappropriate to their status as crime victims,^[97] and eligibility for necessary medical care and other assistance,^[98] as well as special immigration status if they are not citizens.^[99]  The TVPRA also requires federal government agencies to expand services for trafficking victims.^[100] One such mandate was for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish and carry out a pilot program to establish residential treatment facilities in the United States for juveniles subjected to trafficking.^[101] These facilities are intended to provide services, such as shelter, psychological counseling, and assistance in developing independent living skills.^[102]  The TVPRA required HHS to establish the pilot program within 180 days after January 10, 2006 and to issue a report a year after the program's establishment.^[103]  However, Congress did not appropriate the funds required for these pilots, so they are not currently underway.^[104]

Congress did create other funding streams for trafficking victims' services, however. As part of the TVPRA, Congress authorized the appropriation of ten million dollars per year for 2006 and 2007 to create a grants program administered by HHS.^[105]  Under this program, HHS can make grants to States, Indian tribes, units of local government, and nonprofit, nongovernmental victims' service organizations to create and deliver services for victims of severe forms of trafficking.^[106] The statute provides that grant applicants who serve victims of commercial sexual exploitation or who employ survivors of commercial sexual exploitation will be given priority.^[107]  While this program was funded only through 2007, a new reauthorization bill is pending before Congress which would extend the program and increase the amount available for grants to fifteen million dollars per year until 2011.^[108] 

In addition to providing protection and services to victims, the TVPA and TVPRA take many other important steps.^[109]  Sex trafficking of children is a federal crime with stiff penalties,^[110] and attempt is also a crime subject to the same punishment.^[111]  The trafficker must make full restitution to the victim of losses suffered,^[112] and the victim may bring a civil action against the trafficker for damages.^[113] Additionally, a trafficker's interest in any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of [the] violation as well as any proceeds from the trafficking are subject to forfeiture.^[114]  Finally, the executive branch is charged with implementing a variety of trafficking prevention efforts, including economic development programs such as microlending, and education and public awareness initiatives.^[115]

Model State Legislation

These federal efforts, though laudable, are not sufficient for two reasons.  First, the jurisdiction of the federal statute is limited to trafficking that affects interstate or foreign commerce, or which occurs on federal land, such as military bases.^[116]  This means that a local child trafficked only within the state may not fall under the federal statute.  Second, state and local law enforcement officers are more likely to encounter both the victims and the offenders, and thus need to be armed with both the training to identify trafficking, and laws under which they can arrest and prosecute the offenders.

Recognizing that the states have an important role to play in combating human trafficking, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) created the Model Anti-Trafficking Criminal Statute.^[117] The DOJ noted that most states already have statutes criminalizing some or all of the Model's targeted behavior, but concluded that there is a strong need for uniformity in definitions and concepts across state lines to minimize confusion as trafficking victims in state prosecutions begin to seek the victim protections available through the federal Departments of Health and Human Services and of Homeland Security.^[118]  In other words, to qualify for federal victim relief benefits, victims must be able to show that they meet the federal definition of a victim of a severe form of human trafficking, and this can be unnecessarily challenging if state definitions vary significantly from those in the federal law.  In 2004, the Senate passed a resolution endorsing the model and encouraging its adoption.^[119] 

As its name suggests, the Model Anti-Trafficking Criminal Statute focuses on the prosecution of traffickers.  It begins by setting forth a series of definitions.  Most notable in relation to the commercial sexual exploitation of children are the definition of obtain which means to secure the performance of labor or services, and the definition of services which includes [c]ommercial sexual activity and sexually-explicit performances.^[120] Next, the Model lays out three felony-level trafficking crimes, the most relevant of which for this Paper is sexual servitude of a minor.^[121]  A person commits the crime of sexual servitude of a minor if he or she:

…knowingly recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means, or attempts to recruit, entice, harbor, provide, or obtain by any means, another person under 18 years of age, knowing that the minor will engage in commercial sexual activity, sexually-explicit performance, or the production of pornography (see [relevant state statute] (defining pornography)), or causes or attempts to cause a minor to engage in commercial sexual activity, sexually-explicit performance, or the production of pornography….^[122]

This broad language covers all children in prostitution more clearly than that in the Georgia anti-human trafficking statute.^[123]  When combined with the definitions above, the language in the Model indicates that not just pimps, but also johns buying sexual services from children would be guilty of trafficking, because they are securing the sexual services of the child in exchange for value.  By extension, then, any child under eighteen who had been commercially sexually exploited, regardless of whether or not they had a pimp, would be a victim of trafficking, because the act requires the exchange with a john.

Under the Model, penalties for the crime of sexual servitude of a minor vary depending on the age of the child and whether overt force or threat was used.^[124]  There are also sentencing enhancements which allow a court to take the extent of the crime and the length of time over which the victimization of the child occurred into account.^[125]  The Model also provides that the offender must make restitution to the trafficking victims.^[126]

In its notes on the Model, the DOJ states that, Federal experience has shown that prosecution without victim protection is unworkable.^[127]  However, though the Model does include a section on Trafficking Victim Protection, this section only provides for an assessment of the services available in the state, and does not provide any kind of statutory mandate or framework for providing services to victims.

Advocates for trafficking victims agree with the DOJ that the federal government alone cannot uncover and prosecute all of the large and small trafficking rings operating within the United States, and that model legislation is needed to guide states' efforts, but also find a number of gaps and inconsistencies in the DOJ's Model Anti-Trafficking Criminal Statute.^[128]   To address these issues, a group of these advocates, the Freedom Network, drafted an alternate State Model Law.^[129] This State Model Law addresses a variety of issues important to the protection of child victims of commercial sexual exploitation.  Specifically:

• It defines minor as a person under the age of 18 years.^[130]  This important definition is missing from the DOJ Model. 
• It adds accomplice liability.^[131] 
• It adds an additional consideration for sentencing enhancement—if the offender knew or should have known that their victim was a vulnerable victim defined as a person who had no real or acceptable alternative but to submit.^[132]
• It provides for a rule of evidence similar to rape-shield laws, which makes a victim's other sexual behavior or their sexual predisposition inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings related to trafficking.^[133] 
• It gives victims of trafficking immunity from prosecution for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of, or incident or related to, being trafficked, and prevents them from being held in detention centers, jail or prison.^[134] 
• It requires forfeiture by the offender of assets used to commit the crime and proceeds derived from the trafficking.^[135]  It goes a step further, however, and provides an order of priority for how the forfeited assets should be used: first to pay the restitution due to victims, second to fund services for trafficking victims, third to fund law enforcement efforts, and finally, anything left over would be used to fund prevention efforts.^[136]
• It adds detailed procedures for ensuring victims receive restitution.^[137]
• It provides a civil action for actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief, and treble damages where the offender behaved willfully or maliciously.^[138]  Where the act involved a minor, the statute of limitations would be fifteen years from the date the minor turns eighteen, even if a guardian ad litem is appointed before the victim's eighteenth birthday.^[139]
• It adds a provision for training all relevant local and state agencies, including, but not limited to, healthcare, hospital, law enforcement, labor, agriculture, housing, and social service in how to identify and protect trafficking victims, paying particular attention to their unique needs.^[140]
• Perhaps most importantly, the State Model Law recommends that states provide comprehensive services to trafficking victims, including the medical services such as HIV and STD testing, mental health counseling, language assistance where necessary, education and job training, legal services, and shelter programs.^[141]  Because this section was drafted as recommendations, the language could not be adopted directly, but rather would need to be tailored to the state's priorities and structure.  These provisions do not specify any kind of reporting or monitoring of the effectiveness of services, but such monitoring would be advisable to include to ensure the needs of victims are truly being met.

These changes and additions to the DOJ Model create a better balance between the desire to aggressively prosecute those who victimize and exploit children, and the critical need to attend to the traumatized children they have left in their wake.  However, neither Model really addresses prevention.  Keeping children out of harm's way to begin with is a necessary component of any comprehensive solution to the problem of commercial sexual exploitation of children, and, as will be discussed in the next section, is a key component of our obligations under international law.^[142]  Further, while the broad language of the definition of sexual servitude of a minor should encompass all commercially exploited children,^[143] some judges and other decision makers might want give it a more limited reading.  If that were the case, there could be some child prostitutes who, because they are not pimped by someone else, might be excluded from the protections and services guaranteed to those considered trafficking victims.

International Legal Framework

As previously discussed, international law is important to consider, both because treaties and executive agreements represent an exercise of federal authority which preempts state law when the two conflict,^[144] and because these agreements represent the best thinking of international experts on the subject of commercial sexual exploitation of children.  There are a number of international agreements addressing the commercial sexual exploitation of children, but only three have been ratified by the United States: (1) United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (CRC Protocol);^[145] (2) International Labour Organization Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (ILO Convention);^[146] and (3) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (Trafficking Protocol).^[147]  The following sub-sections briefly describe the key provisions of each, highlighting the obligations the United States has assumed for addressing the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

CRC Protocol

The CRC Protocol defines child prostitution as the use of a child in sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration.^[148]  Although the CRC Protocol does not specifically define child, its underlying treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.^[149]  As a State Party to the CRC Protocol,^[150] the United States has committed to:

ensure that, as a minimum, the following acts and activities are fully covered under its criminal or penal law, whether such offences are committed domestically or transnationally or on an individual or organized basis:
…

(a) (i) Offering, delivering or accepting, by whatever means, a child for the purpose of:

a. Sexual exploitation of the child;

…

(b) Offering, obtaining, procuring or providing a child for child prostitution….^[151]

The CRC Protocol requires criminalization of sexual exploitation and prostitution of children, as well as complicity or participation in these acts.^[152]  These provisions clearly call for criminalization of traffickers and pimps.  They can also be interpreted to call for criminalization of the johns, who obtain the child, at least temporarily, for the purpose of child prostitution, and who are, at a minimum, complicit in the exploitation of the child.  The CRC Protocol requires that penalties for the described offenses must be consistent with their grave nature.^[153]  To further penalize the perpetrators and aid in permanently ending their operations, states are required to take measures to confiscate assets used in and proceeds gained from these offenses.^[154]

The state parties are also required to adopt appropriate measures to protect the rights and interests of victims during the criminal prosecution of offenders.^[155]  The CRC Protocol further provides that in the treatment by the criminal justice system of children who are victims of the offences described in the [CRC] Protocol, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration.^[156]  The broad language of this provision seems to apply not just to children's involvement in proceedings as witnesses against their exploiters, but also to proceedings stemming from any charges that might be brought against the children as a result of their exploitation.

The focus of the CRC Protocol is not simply on prosecution of exploiters and protection of victims, however.  It also requires prevention efforts and victims' services.  Prevention efforts are to be implemented through laws, administrative measures, social policies and programmes, with particular attention paid to the children who are most vulnerable to exploitation.^[157]  State parties to the CRC Protocol also specifically committed to take all feasible measures to provide necessary services for children who have been victimized so that they may achieve "their full social reintegration and their full physical and psychological recovery.^[158]  Finally, states must provide procedures for child victims to seek compensation for damages from those legally responsible.^[159]

In addition to these requirements, the CRC Protocol recognizes the need for a holistic approach to child prostitution, and urges state parties to address the contributing factors such as socioeconomic problems and gender discrimination, and to create public awareness of the issue.^[160] However, these goals are framed in aspirational language, rather than the mandatory language of the other provisions described above.

ILO Convention

The second applicable international agreement to which the United States is a party is the ILO Convention.^[161]  The ILO Convention defines child as all persons under the age of 18,^[162] and includes in its definition of the worst forms of child labour:

(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children… and forced or compulsory labour…

(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;

(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities…

(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.^[163]

While the ILO Convention does mention penal and other sanctions,^[164] its focus is on the needs of children.  It requires countries to:

take effective and time-bound measures to:

(a) prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labour;

(b) provide the necessary and appropriate direct assistance for the removal of children from the worst forms of child labour and for their rehabilitation and social integration;

(c) ensure access to free basic education, and, wherever possible and appropriate, vocational training, for all children removed from the worst forms of child labour;

(d) identify and reach out to children at special risk; and

(e) take account of the special situation of girls.^[165]

These requirements overlap somewhat with CRC Protocol, but place greater emphasis on education and outreach.

Trafficking Protocol

The final relevant international agreement to which the United States is a party is the Trafficking Protocol.  The Trafficking Protocol defines trafficking in persons as:

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.  Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation….

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered trafficking in persons even if this does not involve any of the means set forth [above].^[166]

Like the ILO Convention, the Trafficking Protocol considers a child to be a person under eighteen years of age.^[167]  Thus, trafficking in persons encompasses child prostitution to the extent that the child was recruited, transported, harbored, or received into prostitution.  However, the Trafficking Protocol does not apply as broadly to all child prostitutes as do the CRC Protocol and the ILO Convention.  This is in part because of its more limited language, but also because the Trafficking Protocol's underlying treaty limits its application to transnational trafficking by an organized criminal group.^[168]

The Trafficking Protocol requires the criminalization of trafficking in persons^[169] and the protection of victims.^[170]  It recommends services to victims, but does not go as far as the CRC Protocol in requiring them.^[171]  However, it does specifically require states to protect victims of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, from revictimization,^[172] which arguably means that sufficient services must be provided to keep them from returning to a highly vulnerable position. 

The Trafficking Protocol also takes a strong position on prevention, requiring state parties to establish comprehensive policies, programmes and other measures to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, and to take or strengthen measures…to alleviate the factors that make persons, especially women and children, vulnerable to trafficking, such as poverty, underdevelopment and lack of equal opportunity.^[173]

Summary of Relevant Federal and International Law

Since the passage of the TVPA in 2000, the federal government has included commercial sexual exploitation of children in its broader efforts against human trafficking.  Exploiting children through trafficking is a federal crime, and victims are entitled to a number of benefits, including freedom from detention, rehabilitative services, and special immigration status.  Federal anti-trafficking efforts also include the appropriation of funds for grants to state and community organizations working to provide victims services and improve law enforcement efforts to end trafficking.  The federal government recognizes that states have an important role to play in ending human trafficking, and has promulgated model state legislation which it encourages states to adopt.  Trafficking victims' advocates have proposed valuable additions and amendments to the model legislation to make it more victim-centered and services-focused.

The international agreements to which the U.S. is a party recognize that people under eighteen years of age who are involved in prostitution are victims of exploitation in need of services and protection.  These treaties require outreach and other efforts to prevent victimization from occurring, and education, mental and physical health and other necessary services for victims in cases where it has occurred.  Victims must also be provided with some mechanism to seek compensation for the harms that they have suffered, and criminal proceedings involving a child victim must use a best interests of the child standard. 

Under international law, those who exploit children through prostitution, which certainly includes pimps and human traffickers, and arguably also includes johns, are criminals who should face significant penalties reflective of the gravity of their offenses.  They should be forced to forfeit anything used in the exploitation, such as cars, guns, or even buildings, as well as any profits from these crimes.

IV.  Service Delivery Approaches from Other Jurisdictions

The Georgia, federal, and international laws described above are all currently applicable to commercially sexually exploited children in Georgia.  This Part moves away from such direct applicability, and instead seeks to learn from other jurisdictions that are using different approaches.  In examining these other approaches, this Part explores a number of concerns raised by some child welfare professionals about treating commercially sexually exploited children as victims rather than offenders.  These include the concern that if law enforcement is no longer able to arrest and detain children who are involved in prostitution, then these children will not come to the attention of authorities and will not receive needed services, and the worry that if commercially sexually exploited children are not placed in secure detention they will end up back on the street.  This Part addresses these concerns by reviewing how children access services in the other major cities of Las Vegas, Boston, and San Francisco, and outlining the types of services that they receive.  Note that all of these cities have tailored their solutions within the framework of their existing state law, rather than taking legislative action.

The Prosecution Model:  Las Vegas, Nevada

Las Vegas has one of the highest rates of teen prostitution in the U.S., and police arrest and detain hundreds of children on prostitution charges each year.^[174]  In Las Vegas, arrest and detention are the primary means for linking prostituted girls to services and getting their pimps off the streets.  Although prostitution is a misdemeanor in Nevada^[175] and youths picked up for misdemeanors are not usually held in detention, ^[176] juvenile justice officials believe that the practice of detaining child prostitutes is necessary to protect the girls from the dangers of the streets and to obtain information that will lead to the arrest of their pimps.^[177] 

In a 2005 interview with the Las Vegas Sun, the chief juvenile prosecutor described the prosecution model for dealing with child prostitution:  Our concern is, are [juvenile offenders] a danger to themselves or a danger to the community?  In the case of teen prostitutes, the prosecutor explained, they're clearly a danger to themselves.  Physical assault, beatings, sexual abuse, venereal diseases, pregnancy, psychological damage – the risks are tremendous.  Detention not only protects the girls, but allows the cops to come talk to them so we can pursue prosecution of the adult offender.^[178]

Prosecution as the Gateway to Services

In Las Vegas, children involved in prostitution are picked up by police and charged with prostitution or status offenses.  A special unit of vice officers who work for the STOP (Stop Turning Out Child Prostitutes) program interview every child who is suspected of being involved in prostitution within a half-hour of the time the child is booked into detention to assess whether the child is a victim of commercial sexual exploitation.^[179]  The STOP detectives' mission is to help the girls get out of prostitution for good and build cases against their pimps.^[180]

According to Detective Sgt. Gil Shannon, head of the STOP unit, the vice officers have long had an agreement with the detention center to automatically detain juveniles arrested for prostitution on a vice hold.^[181]  Normally, juveniles arrested on misdemeanors are released or held only after a determination of exceptional circumstances, but teens involved in prostitution are kept in custody for at least eight days and interviewed each day by the STOP officers.^[182] 

Detention of these girls, however, often lasts much longer than eight days.  According to a 2005 analysis of booking statistics by the Las Vegas Sun, the average length of a single stay for the girls brought in on prostitution charges was approximately three weeks.^[183]  Pam Towers, a senior management analyst for the Las Vegas Juvenile Justice Department, says that the teen prostitution population lingers in detention approximately seven to twenty-one days longer than the general population.^[184]

Detective Shannon maintains that long detentions are necessary to help the girls get off the streets.  In my experience, he told the Las Vegas Sun in 2005, when you release a child too soon or don't detain them at all, they go right back to a life of prostitution.  Often, girls involved in prostitution deny that they have been exploited and are deeply attached to their pimps.^[185]  Detention allows detectives to break the physical or psychological bond put on the child by the pimp, he explained.  The detectives use the time to gain the girls' trust, convince the girls to get help, and investigate the case against their pimps.^[186] 

According to Cherie Townsend, Director of Las Vegas' Juvenile Justice Services, if a child is willing to leave the streets and cooperate in the prosecution of her pimp, the charge of prostitution is usually dropped and she is released from detention to one of two specialized programs for victims of commercial sexual exploitation:  WestCare Nevada in Las Vegas or Children of the Night in California.^[187]  WestCare Nevada operates a specialized residential treatment program for runaway and homeless youth with separate facilities for boys and girls, and works in collaboration with the Las Vegas juvenile justice and police departments.^[188]  Children of the Night (COTN), based in Van Nuys, California, is the oldest and one of the most influential treatment programs in the nation for children between the ages of eleven and seventeen who are involved in prostitution.  COTN is a purely private, non-profit program.  It receives referrals from governmental and non-governmental agencies across the country and only accepts those children whom it believes are willing to leave prostitution and participate in long-term, comprehensive treatment.^[189]

Lois Lee, founder and president of COTN, endorses the Las Vegas prosecution model and works closely with Las Vegas police and juvenile probation. However, while she believes detention is an appropriate way to get children off the streets and improve prosecution of pimps, she notes that the model only works if the police are specially trained, honest and compassionate—as she believes is the case in Las Vegas—and the charge of prostitution is eventually dropped, and the child linked to services.  In her words, COTN is the carrot and law enforcement is the stick that leads to the arrest of vile pimps that force the children to prostitution for food and a place to sleep.^[190] 

COTN provides services that help children testify in cases against their pimps, as well as services that help them recover from commercial sexual exploitation.  For example, staff file police reports; buy the children court clothes; accompany the children to court even when that involves out-of-state travel, and try to normalize the trial experience, by taking the child to lunch, a movie or the mall before returning home.^[191] 

COTN's treatment services are extensive. The COTN residence is a comfortable, homelike environment with twenty-four beds.  Upon arrival, children receive fresh clothing and hygiene kits and are assigned to a bedroom with bath.  They meet with a caseworker to develop an individual life plan.  The caseworker coordinates medical care, psychological care, academic assessments and other social services that the child needs.^[192]  The children follow a highly structured program that includes attending an on-site school, where they study individually-tailored curricula that help them reach appropriate grade levels in all subjects before they leave COTN.  They attend independent living classes, 12-step substance abuse meetings, and AIDS education classes, as well as craft and poetry workshops, yoga classes and varied sporting and recreational activities.^[193] 

Because COTN is a purely voluntary, private program, a child may stay at the home for as long as she needs.  Many opt to stay for a year for optimum treatment.  Once they turn eighteen, the youth can receive assistance in leasing apartments, getting into college or trade school, or securing jobs.  All those who leave COTN are considered alumni and can re-contact the group for services, such as free books and school supplies while they are in college, job recommendations, or crisis intervention.^[194]  According to Lois Lee, COTN's program is extremely successful.  She claims that 80 percent of the children who have gone through the program have not returned to prostitution, although this number is hard to verify.^[195]

Benefits and Drawbacks of the Prosecution Model

Proponents of the prosecution model argue that, while it is not ideal to prosecute young girls who have been victimized by pimps, the ability to prosecute the girls is an essential tool in the fight against child prostitution.  First, they believe arrest and detention is necessary to force prostituted children off the streets and link them to services.  Second, they believe that the threat of prosecution, coupled with arrest and detention, is the only way to get most girls to cooperate in investigations of the pimps.^[196]

Nevertheless, the drawbacks of the prosecution model are significant. Detention sends the message that the girls are criminals deserving of punishment, rather than victims of sexual exploitation in need of help.  Further, the increase in the use of detention for girls over the past decade has magnified longstanding problems within detention systems.^[197]  According to a 2005 study from the Annie E. Casey Foundation on detention reform and girls:

Many girls' units are overcrowded and conditions of confinement for many girls in detention are poor. Over the past decade, complaints about conditions for girls in detention were raised in Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, South Dakota, and California, among other states. As the rate of detention for girls has increased, already poor environmental conditions and inequities in programming, physical exercise, mental health treatment, and education have become worse.^[198]

Detention facilities are not only ill-equipped to provide the comprehensive services that commercially sexually exploited children need, but research shows that incarceration often makes the children's difficulties worse:  If girls enter detention particularly vulnerable due to their chaotic home lives, histories of trauma and high rates of mental illness, conditions in detention often exacerbate their difficulties.^[199]  Moreover, prostituted children often re-live early trauma when they are isolated and restrained in detention; they are at higher risk of abuse by staff and other offenders; and the sense of powerlessness that keeps them in the grip of their pimp is heightened rather than reduced.^[200] 

Indeed, the underlying assumptions of the prosecution model—that detention is helpful in keeping girls safe, providing services, and prosecuting pimps—are unproven.  Some question whether juvenile courts are best able to provide needed services, noting that some service providers will not accept a child with pending charges and that arrest may create an adversarial rather than rehabilitative relationship with the court system.^[201]  While advocates of the prosecution model argue that detention increases the likelihood that girls will leave the streets and accept long-term treatment,^[202] independent, objective verification of this claim is needed.  Additional research is also needed to determine whether girls are truly more likely to cooperate in the prosecution of their pimps when they are criminally charged than when they are not.

Finally, by focusing on prostituted children who are arrested and detained, the prosecution model may allow children outside the juvenile justice system to fall through the cracks.  At-risk children, as well as children who are already involved in prostitution but have escaped arrest,^[203] may not receive the services they need.  Youth-serving agencies that have contact with these children may be reluctant to identify them out of fear of subjecting the children to prosecution.^[204]  Thus, even though the prosecution model allows authorities to force children off the streets who would not leave otherwise, a lack of inter-agency collaboration might actually result in fewer, rather than more, children being served.

The Child Abuse Model:  Boston, Massachusetts

In Boston, Massachusetts, children involved in prostitution are now being treated as victims of child abuse, rather than as perpetrators of a crime.  Although prostitution by a child is still a crime in Massachusetts,^[205] Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley has gone on record that his office will not prosecute children for that crime:^[206] 

We are . . . taking a new approach at looking at teenage prostitutes.  I'm proud to say that the district attorney's office is a lead partner in a new initiative that seeks to understand why teenagers fall into lives of prostitution, and how we can best help them escape that life.  One major focus of this effort is to view teenage prostitutes as victims rather than defendants . . . [W]e now – when a case of a teenage prostitute is referred to us, either through DYS or the police department or some other source – have a better idea of what needs to be done to ensure that the child is getting the services she needs.  Rather than prosecute her, we and our partners make sure she has safe and suitable housing, that she is enrolled in some sort of educational program, that any mental or physical health issues she may have are being addressed.  Our goal, as it is with any other victim, is to protect her and put her on a safe and healthy track.^[207]

Instead of pursuing prosecutions of children involved in prostitution, the District Attorney's Office is now working with more than 30 community-based and government agencies, including the state's child protective agency, juvenile justice services, law enforcement, health care providers and interested non-profit groups to create a model for dealing with prostituted children that is based on the model used for child abuse victims.^[208]

Institutional Changes to Prepare the Way for a Victim-Centered Approach

In early 2000, the District Attorney's Office began to take steps toward providing better services to all victims of abuse, including child victims of prostitution, and better prosecution of their abusers.  In 2001, it created the Teen Prostitution Prevention Project (TPPP) to foster collaboration among the key players involved in serving prostituted children in Suffolk County and achieve prevention, intervention and prosecution of [adult] offenders.^[209]

  In 2003, it consolidated its child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault units into a single Family Protection and Sexual Assault Unit and later assigned cases of child prostitution to this unit.^[210]  Now, when prosecutors receive a child prostitution case, they treat the child as a victim/witness, rather than as a defendant.  Prosecutors work as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide services to the child and — if she is willing — to build a case against her pimp.  Because they work from a child abuse model, they do not use threats of criminal charges to pressure the child to cooperate in the prosecution of her pimp or withhold services until she does.^[211]

In 2005, the District Attorney's Office opened the Family Justice Center to serve as a central location where victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and child abuse can meet with police and prosecutors, as well as receive shelter, medical care, counseling, legal assistance, a hot meal and other basic services.^[212]  The Center houses TPPP and serves children involved in prostitution.^[213]  The hope is that, if a prostituted child is treated compassionately and spared having to repeat her story to the many different parties involved in her case, she will not get worn down [or] give up, while her offender escapes accountability.^[214]  The Family Justice Center provides a markedly different environment than the police precincts and juvenile detention facilities, where many child victims of commercial sexual exploitation, such as those in Las Vegas, are questioned and held.

The Filing of a Child Abuse Report is the Gateway to Services

The dilemma presented by the child abuse victim model is:  How do authorities identify and serve children who are involved in prostitution, if the children are not arrested and detained?  The answer lies in the filing of mandatory child abuse reports.  In Suffolk County, the filing of a 51A report is the gateway to services for children victimized by commercial sexual exploitation.

Like Georgia^[215] and most other states, Massachusetts requires that human service professionals, such as police officers, psychologists, educators and doctors, report suspected child abuse.^[216] Until recently, however, these mandatory reporters were not filing 51A reports when they suspected that a child was being prostituted, says Kerry Seitz, director of TPPP. ^[217]  One of TPPP's ongoing initiatives has been to educate mandated reporters that prostitution creates physical or emotional injury…which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare… and thus is child abuse.^[218]  Seitz claims that this educational effort has resulted in a significant increase in filings of prostitution-related child abuse reports, though specific statistics were not available.^[219] 

Thus, the 51A report in Boston has replaced prosecution as the means for identifying children involved in prostitution and linking them to services.  Police now file 51A reports, rather than arrest reports, when they encounter a teen involved in prostitution.

The Child Abuse Report Triggers a Multidisciplinary Team Response 

The filing of a 51A report in a child prostitution case triggers a Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) response, just as it does in cases of child abuse or domestic violence.  Once the TPPP receives a 51A report, it assembles an MDT, including a police officer, prosecutor, victim witness advocate, child welfare case worker and sometimes a probation officer, outreach worker or other service provider familiar with the child.  The MDT convenes by teleconference within forty-eight hours of the report to address the child's immediate needs, such as safe housing; evaluate the level of support from her family and community; and identify adult offenders.^[220]

TPPP then arranges for the child to be interviewed at the Family Justice Center by a forensic investigator who is specially-trained to handle child abuse victims.  The members of the MDT observe the interview behind a one-way mirror and develop a coordinated response to her case.  They make referrals to appropriate community-based services and, if the child wishes, take steps toward prosecuting her abusers.  The MDT reconvenes regularly thereafter.^[221]

The Multidisciplinary Team Connects the Child Victim to Services

Currently, there are no specialized government-run service programs in Boston for children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation.  The MDT refers victims to an assortment of community-based groups that work with at-risk youth, including the one group that specializes in services for prostituted girls, Roxbury Youth Works (RYW).  RYW's A Way Back program provides case management, arranges for safe housing, and, through its daytime drop-in center, provides sexual education classes, computer and job training, self-esteem-building workshops, art courses, a variety of recreational activities, such as movie nights, as well as referrals to other service programs.^[222]

Boston officials have plans to improve the services available to these children by developing a continuum of care^[223] designed to meet their specific needs.  The continuum will have four parts:  1) an education program that relies on a prostitution prevention course already being offered in public schools;^[224] 2) a community drop-in center that provides outreach and basic services and is staffed by prostitution survivors; 3) a staff-secured safe house that offers a homelike, highly-structured environment and specialized treatment programs;  and 4) a specialized stabilization or after-care program that reintegrates the children into their communities and families, where appropriate, and helps them live a healthy, normal life outside of prostitution.^[225]

The Benefits and Drawbacks of the Child Abuse Model

While it is too early to gauge the success of the child abuse model in Boston—particularly because the city's continuum of care is not yet fully in place—one benefit that is already apparent is better identification of children involved in prostitution.  By agreeing to treat prostituted children as victims rather than defendants, the District Attorney's Office appears to have strengthened its relationship with child welfare agencies.  In 2007, ADA Leora Joseph of the Office's child abuse division reported that this new collaboration has led to a dramatic increase in the number of child abuse cases involving prostituted teens:  Until a year and a half ago, DSS would rarely send us these cases because they were worried we would prosecute these girls.  Now that we're all working together, they send us so many, I'm beyond buried.^[226]

Early figures bear this out:  In 2001, fewer than a dozen juveniles in Massachusetts were documented by DSS as being exploited by prostitution.^[227]  In 2006, after a year and a half under the new system, approximately 100 child victims of prostitution have been identified.^[228] 

One drawback, or challenge, of the child abuse model is that it can only serve children who want help.^[229]  As A.D.A. Joseph explained, Now I know about the girls, but I can't help them.^[230]  Because some girls are in denial about their exploitation, it is not uncommon for them to refuse help and run back to the streets.^[231]  While Las Vegas' response to this problem is to detain the girls for long enough that detectives can get through to them, Boston does not consider arrest and detention an option under the child abuse model.  For the child abuse model to work, therefore, it requires:  (1) strong education and outreach efforts, and (2) a staff-secured safe house and treatment facility.^[232]  Because children involved in prostitution are not brought to services through arrest, they must be brought to services through education and outreach.  The process of removing the pimp's psychological hold on the child must take place on the streets, rather than in a holding cell.  According to Ms. Seitz, the use of prostitution survivors or peers in this effort is critical.^[233]

Also required is a safe residence that serves as an alternative to detention and a haven where children who are ready to leave prostitution—or, at least, are open to leaving—can escape their pimp, and begin to heal.  In keeping with the child abuse model, Boston's residential treatment facility will not be locked, but located far from the city with electronically monitored entrances and exits and round-the-clock staff who can discourage the children from leaving when the urge to run strikes.^[234] 

Another concern with the child abuse model is that it may hinder the prosecution of pimps.  Some argue that the threat of being prosecuted for prostitution is the only thing that will motivate many children to testify against their pimps.^[235]  A.D.A. Joseph expressed frustration that, under the new model, she was providing more social services for the child victims without seeing any improvement in her prosecutions of the pimps.^[236]  However, because the Boston model is so new, it may be too soon to know whether treating child prostitutes as victims rather than as offenders really results in fewer successful prosecutions of pimps. 

In sum, the advantage of the child abuse model over the prosecution model is that it does not subject child victims of commercial sexual exploitation to the proven, detrimental effects of detention.  The model also appears, at least based on early results, to improve identification of exploited children.  The difficulty of the model is that it does not forcibly remove children from the streets or coerce children to cooperate against their pimps through the threat of criminal charges.  It must rely, instead, on a more painstaking process of outreach, education and persuasion.  Time will tell whether this process is more or less effective than the traditional practice of arrest, detention and prosecution.

The Hybrid Model:  San Francisco, California

By some counts, San Francisco is home to 3,000 child victims of commercial sexual exploitation, and more than 100 of these children are arrested in the city each year on charges of prostitution.^[237]  Like Las Vegas, San Francisco uses arrest and detention as a way to remove prostituted children from the dangers of the street, link them to services, and build a case against their abusers.  San Francisco differs, however, in that authorities have contracted with specialized community-based organizations to assess and counsel children who have been involved in prostitution while they are still in custody and upon their release.^[238]  One such organization is Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE), a non-profit group founded by a prostitution survivor, staffed by prostitution survivors, and dedicated to serving victims of commercial sexual exploitation.^[239]  Because San Francisco relies on arrest and detention to bring children into the system, but couples that practice with a wide range of victim-centered services, it is referred to here as a hybrid model.

All Children Charged with Prostitution Are Detained

In the past, San Francisco children who were arrested on prostitution charges were only detained if they had committed other crimes or violated their probation.^[240]  In 2003, when a young victim of prostitution was murdered on the street after being released by police, authorities instituted a new protocol.  Today, all children arrested on prostitution are detained for their own safety.^[241]

According to Norma Hotaling, director of SAGE, authorities use a procedure of informal probation by which they drop the charges against the child in exchange for the child's agreement to be held for up to 90 days and enter into probation.^[242]  As part of her probation, the child must participate in gender-specific services while in custody and after release that, according to the probation department, are designed both to hold girls accountable for their actions but also to help them heal.^[243] 

Prostituted Children Receive Specialized Services While in Custody

SAGE began serving girls in juvenile detention in San Francisco in 1998, well before the new automatic-detention protocol went into effect.^[244]  As part of SAGE's involvement in the detention center, a SAGE counselor who is a former prostitute teaches a Sexual Exploitation 101 course to all girls in the facility.  She assesses the girls for signs of commercial sexual exploitation, and counsels those girls who have been victimized in individual and group sessions.  SAGE also provides case management, helps girls access victims' compensation funds, and tries to secure the girls' early release to safe locations and programs.^[245]  In contrast to the Las Vegas detention model, this more victim-centered or survivor-focused^[246] model in San Francisco relies on peer counselors who are former prostitutes, rather than vice officers, to assess and counsel the girls while they are detained.^[247]

Exploited Children Continue to Receive Specialized Services upon Release

Children who are victims of commercial sexual exploitation continue to work with SAGE upon their release.  In addition to its in-custody program, SAGE offers a number of other programs for prostituted youth, including:

• Life Skills for Girls and Young Women:  The Life Skills Program is an intensive case management program for prostituted girls who are on probation following detention, as well as for girls who come in voluntarily.  Each girl works with a case manager to develop an individualized service plan with measurable objectives.^[248]  The girls work with peer counselors in individual and group sessions, addressing such issues as sexual exploitation, relationships, neighborhood safety,^[249] substance abuse, anger management, vocational preparation, and communication.  GED and computer training is available.  As part of a restorative justice program, each girl works on a project that gives back to the community.  The girls attend recreational and cultural outings and are introduced to alternative healing arts, such as acupuncture, relaxation techniques and art therapy.^[250]  Most girls participate in the program for between six and fourteen months.^[251]
• Secure House for Girls:  In 2005, SAGE opened a six-bed safe house to provide prostituted girls, ages 12 through 17, with a safe, nurturing environment that specializes in trauma recovery.^[252]  SAGE accepts referrals from juvenile probation, as well as from the child protective services' shelter, family courts, defense attorneys and others.  Girls must be interested in escaping prostitution.^[253]  The home is located in San Francisco, not in a remote location.  It is not a locked facility, but rather is kept secure through electronic monitoring and 24-hour staff.^[254] While in the SAGE House, girls attend individual and group counseling sessions, receive treatment for mental health and substance abuse problems, learn basic social skills, and attend school.^[255]  San Francisco authorities are not using SAGE House as an alternative to detention for girls arrested on prostitution charges.  Girls on the streets may be referred to SAGE House before they are picked up by the police, but once a girl is arrested, the current protocol requires that she must be detained.^[256]
• Boy's Program:  SAGE operates one of the few programs in the country specifically targeted at male victims of commercial sexual exploitation.  This program for boys fills a critical need, and serves between twenty and thirty young men per week.  However, it is less extensive than the girls' program in that it does not provide in-detention services or a safe house. ^[257]
• Additional Services: SAGE also offers medical screening, vocational rehabilitation, a transgender program, and an arts collective and creative writing program.^[258]
• Future Services:  SAGE also has plans to fill in the gaps of its continuum of care by adding a twenty-four-hour hotline, twenty-four-hour outreach services,^[259]  and an evening reporting center.^[260]

Thus, while San Francisco still relies on prosecution and detention to remove prostituted girls from the streets, it modifies the model by actively involving specialized counselors inside and outside of the detention facility and providing a targeted continuum of care.

Exploiters Help Fund the Work

A unique aspect of the San Francisco approach is its first time offenders' program for those arrested for solicitation, the John School.  This educational program for first offenders. . . takes a real-world, confrontation-style look at the legal, health, and other risks and effects of prostitution.^[261]  This approach has two benefits.  First, supporters claim it is very successful in getting men to change their behavior—Hotaling claims a recidivism rate as low as two percent.^[262]  Second, the fees the Johns must pay to participate in the program are used to fund SAGE's services for victims.^[263]

The Benefits and Drawbacks of the Hybrid Model

San Francisco's hybrid model has many of the same drawbacks as the detention model used in Las Vegas.  As mentioned earlier, detention of children who have been used by adults in the sex trade punishes the victim.  According to Ms. Hotaling, it forms the consciousness for the [children], when they are most vulnerable, that they are bad.  And you see that, after their arrest, they are acting just like little criminals.^[264]  And, again, studies show that detention is particularly harmful to girls:  it not only fails to meet their gender-specific needs, but often exacerbates their pre-existing problems.^[265]  The San Francisco model mitigates this problem by inserting a strong therapeutic element into the detention facility. Peer counselors employed by SAGE are able to develop relationships with the girls and begin to provide them with services while they are still in custody.  After the girls are released, SAGE counse