“I Needed People to Tell Me No:” Exploring How Participation in a Human Trafficking Specialty Docket Affects Survivors’ of Sex Trafficking Experiences of Trauma Bonding

Abstract

Little research has examined survivors’ experiences in human trafficking specialty docket courts, particularly related to their trauma bonds. This CBPR phenomenological study sought to fill this gaps by asking: What are the experiences of trauma bonded survivors of sex trafficking in a human trafficking specialty docket? The sample consisted of 19 female survivors of sex trafficking who were all participants in or graduates of a human trafficking specialty docket. Three themes emerged from the data: (a) love and support, (b) views on change, and (c) depends on the individual. These findings contain significant implications for practice and future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Diversion programs
• restorative justice
• trafficking
• trauma
• violence against women

Sex trafficking is a social justice issue warranting ample attention. In the United States, the federal government has defined sex trafficking as:

a commercial sex act which is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. (Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 2000)

While obtaining accurate prevalence data for sex trafficking is incredibly difficult, the U.S. State Department has reported over 20 million victims¹ of trafficking across the world (2014). Trafficked individuals have a variety of needs, as they often have severe trauma histories and experience a plethora of physical, emotional, and psychological consequences from their exploitation (Clawson et al., 2009). One such need is addressing the trauma bonds survivors often form with traffickers or other perpetrators (Casassa et al., 2021; Reid et al., 2013). As the issue of sex trafficking has become more widely recognized, several strategies have emerged over recent decades for addressing survivors’ of sex trafficking needs, including trauma bonds. One such strategy is the rise of sex trafficking specialty docket courts programs, which seek to identify survivors, assist them in their healing, and keep them from re-exploitation. This study seeks to explore trauma bonded survivors’ experiences in one such specialty docket.

Sex trafficking courts

Specialty docket courts have emerged in recent decades to address the unique needs of individuals in various populations, including military veterans, those who abuse substances, and perpetrators of intimate partner violence (Kulig & Butler, 2019; Miner-Romanoff, 2017). While human trafficking specialty dockets can focus on labor or sex trafficking, most in the United States are focused on sex trafficking (Kulig & Butler, 2019). A recent review identified 34 trafficking related courts in the United States, in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and in the District of Columbia (Kulig & Butler, 2019, pp. 305–306).

The development of human trafficking specialty dockets began in part because criminal justice actors have become increasingly important in identifying trafficking survivors (Kulig & Butler, 2019). Survivors of sex trafficking are often coerced into criminal behavior, such as prostitution or drug use, which then exposes them to contact with criminal justice officials. This means the criminal justice system is positioned to identify and thus divert survivors to services and support (Kulig & Butler, 2019). Prior to the development of these specialty dockets, the traditional law enforcement response to street prostitution (and thus often to sex trafficking) was arrest and incarceration (Miner-Romanoff, 2017). These specialty dockets seek to find a better way.

The United States Office for Victims of Crime maintains that human trafficking specialty dockets should “use treatment-oriented protocols to address the offenses committed by the individual and the trauma experienced from their exploitation” (Kulig & Butler, 2019, p. 303). In addition to identifying and diverting trafficking survivors out of the justice system and delivering trauma-informed responses, another goal of these specialty dockets is to prevent future victimization by addressing the “underlying root causes of vulnerability” (Kulig & Butler, 2019, p. 303). While these specialty dockets are mostly comprised of known survivors of trafficking who have engaged in a criminal offense, they can also involve potential victims who are at risk of being trafficked, since an aim of the dockets is to reduce future exploitation of victims (Kulig & Butler, 2019). As specialty dockets have grown in popularity, many states have published requirements for certification and guidelines for their operation (Miner-Romanoff, 2017).

Specialty docket sex trafficking courts often serve defendants charged with prostitution, solicitation, loitering to solicit, or other offenses if the defendant is known to be or suspected to be a survivor of human trafficking (Center for Human Trafficking Court Solutions, 2021). Individuals are referred to these programs by court professionals, typically their attorney or assigned judge, and specialty docket staff then conducts a screening and initial assessment of the individual, along with explaining the program, its rules, and expectations (Begun & Hammond, 2012). This screening and assessment includes an evaluation of the individual’s human trafficking history. Once individuals have pled into the specialty docket program (entrance is contingent on a guilty plea), they typically are involved for a set amount of time, perhaps one or two years. In many cases, if a participant opts to end prematurely, they will be responsible for serving their original sentence (Begun & Hammond, 2012, p. 329). Participants who successfully complete and graduate from these programs are in many cases able to have the case against them dismissed, and possibly their entire record sealed or expunged (Miner-Romanoff, 2017). Participants in these programs are often placed at local facilities to receive treatment for substance use, mental health, and trauma disorders, as well as to receive social service resources such as supportive housing and education (Center for Human Trafficking Court Solutions, 2021, para. 3). On a week-to-week basis, participants typically engage in activities such engaging in treatment, seeking employment, going back to school, meeting with probation officers, attending regular status review hearings, and random screenings for drugs and alcohol (Miner-Romanoff, 2017).

Criticism of sex trafficking courts

While many are enthused by the potential of trafficking specialty dockets, there remains controversy and debate regarding the ethics and efficacy of such courts. Specifically, there are many who argue that if individuals are survivors of trafficking, then they should not be charged with a crime in the first place (Grant, 2018; Manwill, n.d.). Instead of charging a survivor with a crime (e.g., prostitution), these critics propose that judges avoid bringing charges against survivors (Manwill, n.d., para. 20), or that judges utilize post-conviction criminal record relief legislation that has been passed in nearly every state to allow survivors to vacate or seal previous convictions – without requiring them to complete a program first (Grant, 2018, para. 13; Manwill, n.d., para. 17). Opponents of the specialty docket model also point out that the courts are perpetuating coercion of survivors by making access to help and resources contingent on pleading guilty to a crime and through the possibility of arrest or jail time being used as a threat to ensure compliance (Grant, 2020). Instead, these opponents say, survivors should be eligible for services without these services being tied to “completion of a program that may not suit the individual survivor’s needs and timeline” (Manwill, n.d., para. 18).

Critics also lament that specialty dockets lack a nuanced approach to commercial sex and see everyone involved in selling sex as a survivor of trafficking who is need of rescue, which hurts sex workers (Grant, 2018, para. 8, Grant, 2020). Further concerns include the fact that specialty dockets fail to rehabilitate survivors based on survivors’ own self-directed goals (Grant, 2020, para. 11); that courts reflect the racial profiling of police (Grant, 2020, para. 5); and that the future of the dockets relies on the perpetuation of laws that criminalize sex workers (Grant, 2020, para. 14). Finally, a recent review by the Yale Global Health Justice Partnership of some of New York’s trafficking specialty dockets found that people in prostitution often see social services as an extension of law enforcement when they are mandated by the courts, which is problematic because these individuals have been frequently exposed to law enforcement through traumatic arrests (Goldbaum, 2020). The fear and distrust that results can hinder the effectiveness of the social services as well as decreasing the likelihood that individuals will utilize social services later on (Goldbaum, 2020).

Support for sex trafficking courts

While these critiques have merit and are worth consideration, it is the reality that currently, trafficking specialty dockets remain one of the main avenues to identify and assist survivors. Furthermore, preliminary evaluations have found some positive results. For instance, Miner-Romanoff (2017) conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the first five years of one specialty docket in a midwestern state, and found that for most participants, the program helped increase physical and mental health, feelings of safety, healthy behaviors, healthier life skills, access to stable housing, and family relationships. Ninety percent of the individuals who graduated between 2009 and 2013 progressed in their lives in regard to lower recidivism rates, employment, education, and volunteering. Miner-Romanoff found that participants credited the “caring, supportive, and non-judgmental staff members as central factors to their success,” and that participants viewed the court as helping them build self-esteem and giving them the ability to make lasting changes (Kulig & Butler, 2019, p. 313).

Furthermore, a recent systematic review focused on specialty courts for adolescents impacted by commercial sexual exploitation found that court participants benefited from their involvement, as evidenced by a reduction in recidivism rates, improved educational outcomes, decreased instances of running away, improved residential placement stability, and an increase in linkage to specialized services (Godoy et al., 2022). Additionally, Martin et al. (2022) found that purely examining program completion and recidivism rates misses the complete picture of the impact of the court programs. In their study of one human trafficking specialty court, only 27% of participants completed the program, and 60% were rearrested during participation (Martin et al., 2022, p. 63). However, 29% of the participants were able to maintain stable housing, over 50% of the sample had at least six months of sobriety, and only 18% of participants were arrested for new prostitution charges (Martin et al., 2022, p. 65). Measures like these indicate that the impact of these court programs is far reaching and positive, even when participants seem to “fail” based on traditional measures of success. While this data is promising, little research has examined survivors’ experiences in these specialty dockets. Prior research on trauma bonding among survivors of sex trafficking as well as the first author’s practice experience with this population and with human trafficking specialty courts indicate that trauma bonds likely affect survivors who are involved in these dockets. However, no prior research has sought to explore how these survivor-participants experiences these bonds or how their participation in the specialty docket affects their healing from trauma bonding.

Trauma bonding

Trauma bonds are attachments that form in the context of a power imbalance where one person chronically abuses the other, while intermittently showing kindness or love (Dutton & Painter, 1981). Often, the victim cannot escape the abuse and is isolated from others, which leads them to be dependent on the abuser for survival and to take on the perspective of the abuser (Graham et al., 1988). The abuser shows some kindness to the victim, which fosters feelings of loyalty and gratitude (Dutton & Painter, 1981; Graham et al., 1988). Survivors of sex trafficking often experience trauma bonds with their traffickers, as well as other perpetrators (Casassa et al., 2021; Reid et al., 2013).

Casassa et al.’s (2021) scoping review identified four aspects related to trauma bonding among survivors of sex trafficking based on the findings of the fifteen included articles: (1) prior trauma made victims vulnerable to forming trauma bonds, (2) victim’s feelings of love for their perpetrators remained even after exiting trafficking, (3) love is why victims do not prosecute traffickers, and (4) traffickers’ intentionally cultivate the trauma bond (9). This review found that there are still no widely accepted measures to identify trauma bonding, and there is still no diagnostic information in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5-TR) for this issue (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Furthermore, no included article was focused on intervention research or indicated how trauma bonds could be severed and replaced with healthy attachments.

Research with survivors of sex trafficking themselves also supports these findings, although only a few studies to date have focused on survivors’ perspectives. Egu (2018) explored the lived experiences of young adult female victims of sex trafficking and found that all of her participants shared they had mixed and confusing feelings about their exploiter. For example, one participant in Egu’s study shared that she felt “protected and cared for by her pimp because he allowed her to hustle in other ways outside of selling her body. This perceived affection fostered an attachment and an illusion that he cared for her” (Egu, 2018, p. 86). Doychak and Raghavan (2020), who prefer the term trauma-coerced attachment over trauma bonding, conducted in depth case studies with fourteen survivors of sex trafficking to examine the presence of trauma bonds. They specifically utilized a framework of coercive control tactics, intermittent reward and punishment, and self-reported feelings, responses, and resistance/compliance toward the abuser in their analysis. They found that coercive control tactics were present among all fourteen participants’ stories, and intermittent reward and punishment were present among ten. Doychak and Raghavan concluded that trauma-coerced attachment is dimensional as opposed to categorical (it exists in varying severities as opposed to just being present or not present). Casassa et al. (2022a) found that survivors of sex trafficking develop trauma bonds not just with traffickers or romantic partners, but also with drug dealers, parents, and grandparents. Casassa et al. (2022a) also found that survivors experienced trauma bonds as being involuntary, as having a lingering power over them, and as consisting of both love and hate.

Furthermore, Casassa et al. (2022) examined service providers’ perceptions of trauma bonding among survivors of sex trafficking and found that service providers define trauma bonding in ways that accord with prior research: there is a “yearning for intensity” on the part of survivors (in part due to prior abuse, healthy interactions seem boring and intensity is normalized), a power imbalance is present between survivors and their perpetrators, survivors often exhibit a “distortion of love,” and the bond seems “inescapable.” Service providers also expressed belief that trauma bonds are “universal” in the sense that anyone can develop them and they are a normal, adaptive response to certain types of traumatic circumstances; however, they also expressed belief that trauma bonds are “gendered,” specifically that women seem more susceptible to develop them than men (Casassa et al., 2022).

Study purpose

This study is part of a larger work that seeks to hear from survivors directly about how trauma bonds are formed, how they manifest, and how survivors have experienced healing from them. In part due to the sensitive quality of the issue at hand and the often-hidden nature of the population, too few studies have sought to give voice to survivors themselves and their own experiences with trauma bonding. It is important to hear from survivors directly about this issue. There are several reasons for this. First, survivors who have experienced trauma bonding know better than anyone how trauma bonds affect them and what they are like, as well as what is helpful or not helpful in regards to healing from the bonds. Centering the lived experiences of those who actually have trauma bonds is essential to understanding this phenomenon. Additionally, research has demonstrated that the very process of engaging survivors in sharing their experiences can also be therapeutic (Ellsberg & Heise, 2005, pp. 43–44). Specifically, many survivors have never been able to discuss their experiences, and the act of telling their stories can “offer a woman some small way of transforming her personal ordeal into a way to help others” (Ellsberg & Heise, 2005, p. 43). Furthermore, discussing these issues can help communicate to survivors that their experiences of violence and exploitation are worthy of study, and not shameful or unimportant.

Thus, this phenomenological study seeks to center survivors’ lived experiences and to prioritize and honor survivors’ voices. Additionally, little research has examined survivors’ experiences in human trafficking specialty docket courts. Trauma bonds likely affect survivors who are involved in these courts, but no prior research has sought to explore how these survivor-participants’ participation in the courts affects their experiences of or healing from trauma bonding. This study seeks to begin to fill that gap. The research question guiding this study is: What are the experiences of trauma bonded survivors of sex trafficking in a human trafficking specialty docket?

Methods

Study design

This study used a community based participatory research (CBPR) approach, partnering with a human trafficking specialty docket in the authors’ state of residence. This human trafficking specialty docket serves defendants who are known to be or suspected to be survivors of sex trafficking. Specialty docket staff collaborated with the first author and participated in identifying the research problem, designing the research study, recruiting participants, and analyzing the data. The first author aimed to build on the strengths and resources of the specialty docket staff, and to facilitate a collaborative and equitable partnership in all phases of this research, with shared accountability in the decision-making process (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008).

This study is phenomenological in nature. Phenomenology is concerned with gaining a deeper understanding of the meaning or nature of peoples’ experiences (Van Manen, 1990, p. 9). Given that the focus of this study was on gaining a deeper understanding of how survivors of sex trafficking experience trauma bonding, a phenomenological approach was the best methodological framework as phenomenology helps achieve a description of the universal essence of a phenomenon or concept (Creswell, 2013). Utilizing a phenomenological approach shaped the open-ended research question for this study, the relatively small sample size (given the importance of giving full appreciation to each participant’s account), the semi-structured, open-ended nature of the interview and focus group guides, the data analysis process (described below), and the narrative approach to writing up the results of the study (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014).

This study involved two phenomenological qualitative components to address the research question. The first component of the study entailed conducting focus groups (N = 3) with survivors of sex trafficking (n = 13) purposely sampled from among the current participants in the specialty docket program. The second component of the study entailed conducting in-depth individual interviews with survivors of sex trafficking (n = 6) purposely sampled from among the graduates of the specialty docket program. Hence, the total sample for this study was nineteen participants. Additionally, all participants were at least eighteen years of age and were cisgender women. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the first author’s university.

The rationale of conducting both interviews and focus groups was drawn from the specialty docket staff. Specialty docket staff advised that current program participants would be better suited to focus groups, as they are typically less stable, having had less time in treatment, less sobriety time, and less trauma work. Focus groups allowed for these individuals to share their experiences with trauma bonding in a less intensive and personal way, as compared to the individual interviews. The researcher felt that it was important to hear from both current program participants and program graduates to include an array of experiences, encompassing those who are more recently removed from their trauma bonding relationships and those who have had several years of distance to process and make sense of their trauma bonding experiences.

Data collection

The first author purposively recruited current specialty docket participants by attending weekly status review hearings at the municipal courthouse, which are open to the public. The first author introduced herself, explained the study, and passed out flyers to participants. The first author did this for about six weeks to recruit participants for the focus groups. Interested participants could contact the first author via information on the flyer, and the first author then scheduled focus groups. Specialty docket staff assisted in recruiting program graduates for participant in the individual interviews by sharing the first author’s flyer via e-mail and social media with program graduates. Interested graduates could contact the first author via information on the flyer, and the first author then scheduled interviews.

The first author conducted three focus groups with a total of thirteen participants and six individual interviews throughout March, April, and May of 2022. The location of the interviews and focus groups was decided by participants, and options included the municipal courthouse (where the specialty docket status review hearings take place), the residential treatment center at which the participant is residing, or a local nonprofit’s serving survivors of sex trafficking office, which is a safe and trauma-informed space. The first author provided an opportunity for focus group and interview participants to verbally provide informed consent immediately preceding data collection. The first author took field notes during focus groups and interviews, which indicate key points of discussion, significant quotes, behavioral observations such as body language, irony, etc. In addition, all focus group sessions and individual interviews were audio-recorded. Focus group discussions lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Refreshments and lunch were served during focus groups. Study participants also received a $15 gift card to Walmart for participation in the focus group. Individual interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes. Study participants received a $20 gift card to Walmart for participation in the interview.

Data analysis

To get at the essence of the phenomenon of trauma bonding, the authors focused on identifying the commonality of survivors’ experiences and the meaning they attach to those experiences. Focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim, producing narratives of the lived experiences of survivors of sex trafficking. Initial analysis consisted of closely reading the transcripts line-by-line several times. The authors made notes about their observations and reflections, with special attention to distinctive phrases and emotional responses (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014, p. 12). Next, two rounds of coding were conducted. These notes and codes were transformed into emerging themes. Next, the authors looked for connections between emerging themes, and created clusters with descriptive labels. Each theme was then described and exemplified with quotes from the narrative transcripts and analytic comments from the researchers. Individual interview participants have been assigned pseudonyms and will be referred to by these pseudonyms in the results section below. Unfortunately, focus group transcripts did not distinguish between participants, so pseudonyms were unable to be used.

To enhance rigor and credibility, this study utilized rigorous qualitative methods used to reduce researcher bias and reactivity. This included regular peer debriefing between the first author and specialty docket staff throughout data collection and analysis. Additionally, detailed memos and an audit trail were also kept throughout the entire study, including recruitment, data collection, and data analysis, which increased author self-reflexivity (Padgett, 2008, p. 191). These memos included information on factors that had the potential to influence analysis, including the authors’ background, beliefs and biases, interests, and philosophical paradigm. Keeping memos and an audit trail also allowed the authors to bracket, so as to focus solely on the experiences of the participants (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore, the authors prioritized the participants’ voices by utilizing direct quotes and not taking data out of the context.

Results

Participant demographics

All nineteen participants identified as cisgender women. Sixteen participants identified as non-Hispanic White or European American. Two participants identified as multiracial, and one participant identified as African American. Participants’ ages ranged from the mid-20s to mid-60s, with the average age range being 25–34.

Themes

All focus group and individual interview participants in this study endorsed having experienced a trauma bond. Three themes emerged from the data regarding trauma bonded survivors’ of sex trafficking experiences in a human trafficking specialty docket. Survivors shared that (a) love and support from specialty docket staff contributed to their ability to flourish in the specialty docket and to overcome effects of their trauma bonds. Survivors had conflicting and (b) varying views on change the specialty docket had undergone regarding their rules and procedures, and how effective or ineffective they felt these changes were for survivors with trauma bonds. Finally, survivors expressed that how trauma bonding affects a survivor in the specialty docket ultimately (c) depends on the right timing for the individual.

Theme one: love and support from staff

The first theme is that survivors experienced love and support from specialty docket staff, and they believe this love and support was a powerful aid in overcoming the effects of their trauma bonds and being able to flourish in the program. A participant in the first focus group explained that she feels indebted to specialty docket staff because they helped “to save our lives,” and she credits their support for her ability to deal with her trauma bond and to share her experience with others:

They were here to teach us how to deal with these things so that we could become better for ourselves and better for other people and then, hopefully, be comfortable with telling our trauma stories to help the next people that’s comin’ in after us.

A participant in the second focus group shared that specialty docket staff supported her when she had to make a tough decision about setting boundaries with an individual she was trauma bonded to:

I’m just not in a place to take care of him right now. But I have this serious, like—I feel so guilty and it’s just these terrible feelings that I feel. I can’t even explain what they are. But I know that I just feel bad because I can’t take care of him. And I know what he’s going through. So it’s really hard for me to sit back and just—but I have to. Thank God, I have [specialty docket staff] because without them and their support, I would not be making it ‘cause I am so struggling right now. It was a really tough decision for me, but I know that the decision I made was the best one. But they’re there for you no matter what you—if you do wrong, they’re there. They help you get through it. And a lot of women haven’t never had that. Never. Not even with their parents or their loved ones. And they also, they guide them. And you can tell them anything.

Another participant in the second focus group also shared a similar experience where she was nervous to tell specialty docket staff the truth about her ongoing contact with an unsafe individual she was trauma bonded to, but staff’s love and support empowered her:

I was in treatment and I left and met him and we had sex and I got caught. And I got in some trouble for it. It’s hard because even though we’re in treatment, if you still feel this type of way about someone and you still have a trauma bond with somebody—sibling, parent, significant other, child—no matter who it is, you still have this bond with them, it’s so hard to stay away from them. And I had to come downtown and talk to [specialty docket staff] because I was so upset because just being around him and seeing him just gives me like the most anxiety and it freaks me out. It’s so bad. But having them there to talk to and go to is just—it’s a miracle. They are there for you. And the best part is, I have been on probation; I’ve been to prison; I’ve been on parole. All this stuff, but I have never felt like I could trust anyone before them. And I know that if I have a problem or something is going wrong, or I feel like using, or if I see somebody from my past, I can call or I can go to them, and I can be honest, and I know that they’re gonna help me, not judge me or, you know, make me feel shamed or guilty.

Likewise, another participant in the second focus group affirmed this feeling, and said that specialty docket staff foster an environment in which “every single person that comes in that courtroom is my family, and they are there for me no matter what. It’s just a great place to be.” A different participant in the same focus group also pointed out the irony that even though the specialty docket staff includes a literal judge, “they don’t judge you.” Helen affirmed this as well, and shared that she felt she could be honest with specialty docket staff about anything, which aided her healing from her trauma bonded: “The staff, you can call them and talk to them about anything. Being honest has got me very far with them.” Finally, Ella discussed this love and support as well, and said of the specialty docket staff that “they loved me until I loved myself.”

Theme two: varying views on change

The second theme is that survivors had varying views on the changes that the specialty docket had implemented over recent years regarding their rules and procedures, specifically related to if they believed these changes were effective or ineffective in helping survivors cope with the effects of their trauma bonds. It appears from the participants’ account that the specialty docket previously had stricter rules and procedures, but had recently relaxed some of these. It is interesting to note that participants in the focus groups, meaning those who were current participants in the specialty docket, voiced a positive consensus regarding the changes. However, the individual interview participants, meaning those who were graduates of the specialty docket, voiced a negative consensus regarding the changes, with the exception of rules regarding participants dating. Many of these graduates called for some sort of compromise and expressed a desire for the specialty docket to bring back some of the old protocols.

Participants in the focus groups were all positive regarding the specialty docket’s changes. One participant in the first focus group explained her belief that dealing with her trauma bond and its effects would have been more difficult prior to the changes:

I think the old rules with [the specialty docket], it would’ve been a barrier, but I think they’re more lenient now, compassionate. I think they’re learning a lot more about people in general and what they’re going through.

Similarly, another participant in the first focus group expressed appreciation for the changes, particularly noting that participants today have the opportunity to disclose unhealthy behaviors or ways they might be violating the rules because of a trauma bond without as much fear of consequences:

So they’re being more open minded on how to, like, allow us to, tell them, basically, tell on ourselves, so that we would be more comfortable. I think of opening up about our trauma bonds before, like, five or six years ago, when [the prior judge] was the judge and he was stricter on stuff. But now today, they want us to trust them and to open up to them, which before, a lot of people weren’t because they were scared of the consequences or whatever.

Likewise, a different participant in the first focus group voiced gratitude that specialty docket staff are trying to be “more open and understanding.” She said, “this shows me that they’re really tryin’ to do whatever they can.”

Participants in the individual interviews were not as positive regarding the recent changes. These participants voiced concern, and shared that for them, the strictness and structure of the old rules and procedures was invaluable in their healing journey. Maria explained how the structure was helpful for her, and shared her concern about current specialty docket participants today:

I think [the specialty docket] looks a lot different today. I really appreciated the structure and the accountability and consequences for behaviors and things like that. I think that helped keep me in line with what I was trying to do, and that was stay away from those people, stay away from those places, and stay away from those things. They don’t have stayaways² now. It just looks a lot different. This is just me, but I don’t really like the way [the specialty docket] is right now, I think it’s just a little too lenient. Consequences are okay, and I know we wanna not re-traumatize people and we want this restorative justice approach, but I think that letting people do whatever they want—if I was able to do whatever I wanted in that first six months or so, I’d probably be dead, or back out there. I needed people to tell me no. I needed people to be in my business. I needed that accountability and structure, and I think today it looks a little bit different, and I can see the difference in the people in [the specialty docket]. The people that are going through [the specialty docket] right now are not staying sober and away from those bad people, places, and things. Almost everyone but one person that graduated last year is back out there. But when I was in [the specialty docket], I wouldn’t have changed anything about my process. It took a minute to build the trust because I was fearful of the consequences, but once I was able to say, ”Hey, I am doing this bad thing,” and they loved me and accepted me and said, ”We’re gonna help hold you accountable by keeping this person away and getting a little more in your business” that’s gonna keep me from doing it.

Andrea also shared that the stayaway orders were helpful for her early in treatment, to be able to resist the pull of her trauma bonds. She explained:

I feel like the stayaway orders were helpful. And honestly, it makes me nervous that they don’t have those, especially comin’ in, because I look at it like, for me, it was like I was a kid.

Helen expressed similar thoughts, and also pointed to the recent graduating class of the specialty docket as an example of her concern about the changes:

When I first got to treatment, I woulda left if I didn’t think I was goin’ to jail, I woulda been gone. You know what I mean? I wouldn’t have made it as far. I wouldn’t have made it here today if I didn’t have that. You know what I mean? ’Cause, like, then, I didn’t wanna be clean. My plan was to dry up and then go back out looking better. Like that’s what was in my head. You know what I mean? But, I’m grateful for the strictness that I did have. I was at [the specialty docket] graduation last year. And there’s only like two of the girls still sober, three maybe. You know what I mean? They didn’t know how to live. So I do feel like, them letting people go off and stuff is good, but not so early. I didn’t leave until after I had a year of treatment. And I needed that year in treatment. I didn’t like it. But I needed it. I feel like there needs to be something done about it, but, like I said, I don’t know how people would go about enforcing it because I feel like, unless it’s, like, a want thing, then it’s never gonna happen.

Graduates also shared some ideas for compromise, and voiced hope that the specialty docket would bring back some of the old rules and procedures. Maria shared the idea that the specialty docket could bring back the use of stayaway orders, but perhaps only for the beginning of someone’s time in the program, while the pull of the trauma bond is too strong:

[The specialty docket] needs stayaways still. Stay away from this person for 90 days and let’s see what you do. And then let’s revisit it in 90 days. And then maybe they’ll not even want to, they might sneak and still talk to them or something, but then at 90 days, I don’t know.

Andrea also shared a similar idea regarding the use of stayaway orders:

It was very, very, very, very strict. It was an intense, hard program. And it went all the way to here where essentially there’s no rules. And so it’s like one day maybe meeting back and finding a happy medium. If it was a year inpatient required, let’s do six months. If there’s no stayaway orders at all, let’s do temporary stayaway orders. There needs to be a happy medium at some point. I know this is all evolving and they’re testing it, and I’m sure they’ll twerk it where they need to. But for maybe 90 days even, right out of jail they have this stipulation where, it is a direct violation [to break the stayaway], and you will have consequences for that, until they’re strong enough and work through some of the trauma bonding. Or at least learn what it is.

Viola also shared ideas for compromise regarding the rules around participants in the specialty docket dating. She explained that dating was very strictly off-limits per the old rules of the specialty docket, but that had since relaxed. She voiced understanding why the initial approach was so strict, since often the participants’ trauma bonds affected their ability to form healthy relationships, but also shared she was open to some of the new leniency in this area, as long as the effectiveness was studied:

I always hated that part of it, when it came to consequences of like, the boyfriends or girlfriends, I didn’t love that, but I understood why, like, I know the mindset when creating that part of the program, it’s because we get sideswiped, we put that relationship in front of everything. And it is really hard not to do that when we’re so unhealthy. The same reason we were able to be trafficked is the same reason we end up in these unhealthy relationships. Or very similar reasons, with the whole, like, this is a connection, this is sex, this is love, this is partnership, this is whatever, you know? Those things that we are looking for. It takes time for that part of us to be healed, and it takes time, space, energy, willingness, and, intention, and if we don’t have that stuff or we haven’t had the time yet, then we’re still gonna make the same choices. Why wouldn’t we? We’re the same [laughter]. Now it’s just without dope [laughter]. I always said, “They really need to allow them to date earlier.” And it was really because I wanted them to be able to date while with [the specialty docket]. Now, do I totally agree about, like, certain people? Not necessarily, but I think it’s worth playing around with. I think it’s important enough and tricky enough to see how it works and to empower the women in [the specialty docket] to start making decisions, or going through hard things, and being able to own it, maybe have some support to get through it. I’m for it, yeah, give it the shot. Long as someone’s taking data. My curiosity is how many people are staying sober, like, long-term. So I hope someone’s tracking that. I see the merit of, if there’s no fear of punishment, then that hopefully can foster honesty and then people can at least get help working through the choices they’re making and the consequences of those choices. That’s, like, tools to be able to resist the pull of the trauma bond, ’cause the trauma bond really, it goes against everything this new life will be.

Bianca also shared ideas for compromise regarding rules involving dating or involvement with men, explaining that the strictness she experienced in this area while in the specialty docket did not prepare her to make healthy choices once she graduated:

I think it should be men too so we know how to correspond with men better. You know what I mean? Bring men involved with women that is helping themselves, not people that are out there, but getting groups with men and women so that we can learn how to trust the other, and learn how to go out and go bowling together, just create support systems where they get together and they do things together as a group, but just not all women ‘cause if we just continue to be just all women in a group and do support things with women that’s fine and that’s great, but we’re still not learnin’ how to have healthy relationships with the other sex. Yeah, I really believe that would help a lot, because when we do decide to get in a relationship we know what to expect. And we can hear their point of view too. It’s not just the woman’s point of view. ‘Cause we didn’t get that. We wouldn’t have no relationships the whole time we was in [the specialty docket], and then when I get out there I went back to the relationships that I knew because I wasn’t taught anything else, and all my groups was just women. You know what I mean? I never got a man’s point of view on anything.

Theme three: depends on right timing for the individual

The third theme is that survivors expressed their experiences in the specialty docket and with their trauma bonds ultimately depends on the right timing for the individual. Participants in the focus groups and individual interviews agreed that regardless of the rules and procedures of the specialty docket, participants must individually be ready to make choices to not act on the pull of their trauma bonds and to seek change. One participant in the first focus group shared that she had previously been involved in the specialty docket and was not willing to be open or ask for help, and now that she is back her attitude is changed and that is affecting her experience:

I know when I was in [the specialty docket] five years ago, I was like a closed book. I did not speak out at all, really. I was shut down, close minded, and I was there just to not be in trouble or something, you know? I wasn’t really gettin’ the help I was needing. Versus this time, I’m open minded, and I’m willing to share what’s bothering me or share my story.

A participant in the third focus group shared that she does not believe the rules the specialty docket matter, because it is up to the individual to make their own choices:

If they [specialty docket staff] make it to where we get punished for talking to them [unsafe individuals they are trauma bonded to], it’s not gonna stop us from talking to them. There’s nothing really they can do. It’s more of a self-working process. I’m not allowed to talk to mine [individual who is under a stayaway order], but I still do every day. You know what I mean?

Another participant in the same focus group shared a similar sentiment, and said that change depends on the individual being ready, and others, including the specialty docket, just need to provide support and wait for the right timing:

Eventually we’re gonna get fuckin’ tired of bein’ let down, treated like dog shit, and told what to do and controlled. It might take a while, but eventually we’re gonna get tired of all that shit and be like, “Fuck you, I’m done.” There’s nothing anybody can do but just be there for us when we need someone, and let us get through it on our own, in a way. All we can do is work on ourselves.

Helen shared similar opinions regarding the experience in the specialty docket and dealing with trauma bonds depending on the individual’s readiness for change. She explained:

You can’t get help unless you want the help. If youda told me I couldn’t, I would’ve. So it was more so like my own mindset. I needed to wanna do it, or it was never gonna happen. I feel like if some people don’t make their own decisions to do something, it never fully goes through anyways. You know what I mean? It’s not genuine. And they’ll end up goin’ back to it regardless, whether it’s with him or a new person.

Andrea discussed this as well, and explained that individuals have to have the freedom to make their own choices and learn from their mistakes when it comes to dealing with their trauma bonds. She did also mention that others will be unable to truly help the individual unless the individual is at a place where they are ready to be honest:

Because ultimately we’re gonna do what we wanna do. Once our minds are made up, if there’s this dude we’re gonna talk to, like you’re not gonna change my mind right now in this moment. I have to walk through that. You know, and that’s a good thing because when you walk through it, you experience it, and you grow from it, and you learn. And you do better next time. But at the same time, it gives that free arena to where I can’t help you ultimately unless you are 100 percent honest with me.

Discussion

This phenomenological study involved current and former participants of one of the 34 existing U.S. human trafficking related courts and sought to answer the research question: What are the experiences of trauma bonded survivors of sex trafficking in a human trafficking specialty docket? Three themes emerged from the data: Survivors shared that (a) love and support from specialty docket staff contributed to their ability to flourish in the court program and to overcome effects of their trauma bonds; survivors had conflicting and (b) varying views on change the specialty docket had undergone regarding their rules and procedures, and how effective or ineffective they felt these changes were for survivors with trauma bonds; and survivors expressed that their experiences in the specialty docket and with their trauma bonds ultimately (c) depends on the right timing for individual and their readiness to change.

Some of these findings are consistent with prior literature on this topic and help corroborate previous claims. For instance, the first theme that survivors reported that the love and support they experienced from specialty docket staff helped them deal with their trauma bonds and make tough decisions accords with Miner-Romanoff’s (2017) findings that specialty docket participants credited caring and supportive staff members as being central to their success. Miner-Romanoff was focused on success more broadly and not addressing trauma bonds, but it is fitting that staff’s love and support would be helpful for survivors specifically when it comes to addressing their trauma bonds since trauma bonds are a form of relationship, and other healthy relationships can help to diminish the power of the trauma bond relationship. Furthermore, Casassa et al. (2022b) found that survivors expressed that building trusting and honest relationships with counselors, specialty docket staff, and others was an integral component to their ability to heal from trauma bonds. This is also consistent with this study’s findings that survivors commended specialty docket staff’s nonjudgmental acceptance as being necessary for them to be able to be honest and seek accountability and help.

Furthermore, the second theme that survivors have varying views on changes that have occurred in this specialty docket also contains some relevance to prior literature. Specifically, current court participants voiced appreciation of the softening of the strictness of the program and shared that the decrease in consequences facilitated greater trust and comfort opening up on their part. This would seem to support some of the prior criticism that has been launched against human trafficking courts, including Grant’s (2020) claim that these courts perpetuate coercion by using threats of jail as a tool for compliance and Goldbaum’s (2020) assertion that fear and distrust of mandated treatment can hinder the effectiveness of the services.

In addition to building on prior literature, these findings also contain new and important insights previously unaddressed. To the author’s knowledge, no prior research study has examined how the structure and dynamics of these sex trafficking courts affects survivors’ ability to deal with and heal from these bonds. The United States Office for Victims of Crime has stated that human trafficking courts should “address the underlying root causes of vulnerability” of trafficking survivors (Kulig & Butler, 2019, p. 303), and what the survivors shared in these focus groups and interviews confirmed the author’s hypothesis that trauma bonds are indeed one such underlying root cause that profoundly affects survivors, including during their involvement in specialty docket programs.

Survivors shared that love and support from specialty docket staff helped them deal with their trauma bonds, specifically because they could seek accountability from staff when trying to set boundaries with unsafe individuals to whom they were bonded. Survivors in this study also shared conflicting views on changes the specialty docket had enacted. Survivors who were currently involved in the specialty docket (focus group participants) voiced liking the changes and believing the relaxing of strictness facilitated greater honesty and trust. Contrary to this, survivors who had previously graduated from the specialty docket (individual interview participants) voiced not liking the changes and believing the strictness and consequences present prior to the changes helped survivors stay away from unsafe people they were bonded to and make healthier choices. It is interesting to note that these conflicting opinions fell neatly along the lines of current participants versus graduates. One aspect to consider when making sense of these varying views is that the graduates had years of treatment, trauma therapy, sobriety, and healing under their belts, and they also acknowledged that when they were in the court program, they did not always like the strictness or appreciate the rules. Current participants, on the other hand, were only a few months to a year into treatment and the court program, and many voiced openly that they were still in contact with unsafe individuals they were trauma bonded to.

Finally, survivors shared that change ultimately depends on the right timing for the individual, and that survivors must be ready to be honest, engage in treatment, and desire to change. Survivors noted that specialty docket staff do have a role to play in supporting survivors as they learn from their mistakes, but they made it clear they believe the onus for dealing with trauma bonds and succeeding in the court program falls on the individual survivor.

Implications for practice

This phenomenological study is the first of its kind to explore how survivors of sex trafficking have experienced healing from trauma bonding in a human trafficking specialty docket, and as such, these findings hold important implications for practice with survivors. First, it is important for human trafficking court staff to be educated on trauma bonding and how these bonds affect trafficking survivors. It is likely that many court staff in the 34 trafficking related courts around the nation are unaware of trauma bonding and how widespread it is in this population. Human trafficking courts should also incorporate education and awareness on trauma bonding into their programs for survivors themselves.

Second, as seen in survivors’ experiences from this study, it is essential for court staff to be loving, supportive, nonjudgmental, and to create an environment in which survivors feel no shame if they are going to be able to help survivors succeed and to experience healing from their trauma bonds. Third, court staff must also strike a delicate balance between this loving support and appropriate structure and accountability. Exactly what this balance needs to be remains unclear, as demonstrated in the conflicting reactions to one specialty docket’s changes seen in this study’s participants. Court staff might begin by examining the ideas for compromise suggested by participants, including the use of temporary stayaway orders and adjusting dating protocol for court participants to allow participants to enter relationships while supported by the program and not waiting until they are out on their own.

Fourth, court staff must recognize that change is ultimately dependent on individual survivors themselves and if the timing of the program accords with their readiness for change. The Transtheoretical Model of Change, or Stages of Change model, can likely provide some valuable insight for court staff as they attempt to evaluate a survivor’s readiness for change and consider how to increase this readiness (Briner, 2018; Lloyd, 2018; Prochaska et al., 1992; Wilson & Nochajski, 2018). This model suggests there are five stages that individuals move through regarding change, including precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. Additionally, Motivational Interviewing techniques (Miller & Rollnick, 2013) are a likely source of aid for practitioners seeking to help survivors increase their readiness for change.

Implications for future research

The findings of this study also inform direction for future research. First, the sample for this study was fairly homogenous, consisting of all cisgender women, the majority of which who were non-Hispanic White or European American, and all of whom were current participants or graduates of the same specialty docket program. Future research with more diverse samples is needed to build on these findings and establish broader transferability. Specifically, replicating this study with other human trafficking courts around the country to compare the results would be an important next step. Additionally, future studies should investigate the prevalence of trauma bonds among human trafficking court participants, as well as exploring what other specialty dockets or problem-solving trafficking courts are doing to address trauma bonding among their participants.

Furthermore, in an effort to make sense of the conflicting views of this specialty docket’s recent changes, future research should involve longitudinal research that tracks not only graduation rates for human trafficking courts, but also how survivors continue to do post-graduation. These studies could also compare courts and their effectiveness based on the varying approaches to strictness, rules, and consequences. This specialty docket could also implement some of the participants’ suggested compromises and evaluate their effectiveness. Finally, future research should explore what factors contribute to a survivor’s readiness to change, as well what court staff can do that is effective in increasing this readiness to change.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study lie in the rigorous qualitative methods used to reduce researcher bias and reactivity, including maintaining a journal, detailed audit trail, and peer debriefing throughout data collection and analysis. Additionally, the inclusion of survivors of sex trafficking as the study participants is a further strength of this research. The phenomenological methodology allows this study to give voice to the participants, and engaging survivors in sharing their experiences also posed a therapeutic benefit for them (Ellsberg & Heise, 2005).

Regarding limitations, the study participants did not represent diverse racial, ethnic, and gender identities, and as such, the sample’s lack of diversity may have resulted in a biased response and limits the transferability of the findings. It is interesting to note that the racial makeup of this study’s sample is similar to the demographics of the specialty docket in question. It is unclear why the demographics of this specialty docket do not accord with what would be expected based on general trafficking data, and this is a complaint that has been lodged at this docket in the past. Additionally, the self-selection of respondents into the study may have resulted in bias based on the subset of the survivors who felt comfortable participating. Since this study only sampled survivors who are currently receiving services or who have received services at one time, the transferability of the findings to survivors of sex trafficking at large is limited, since those who seek and receive services differ substantially from the full universe of survivors (Ellsberg & Heise, 2005, p. 57).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2023.2202200.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Ohio State University College of Social Work through the Ph.D. Research Seed Grant Program [GR122328], as well as The Women’s Place and the Casassa Coca-ColaCritical Difference Grants for Research on Women, Gender and Gender Equity | NSP [GR128298].

Notes

1. Throughout this paper, the terms victim and survivor will both be used to refer to individuals who have experienced sex trafficking. Typically, victim is used in instances when the individuals being discussed are currently being trafficked, or if the authors are quoting other authors’ research who use this term. Survivor is used in instances when individuals who have exited trafficking are being discussed.

2. A stayaway is a form of restraining order in which a court orders someone not to go within a certain distance of another person or place.