Section G | Sexual Exploitation/Coercion/Control

When determining evidence of questionable support while away, screeners commonly noted that if a youth cannot or will not identify how they supported themselves, they would mark “yes” for that indicator. As a Southeast screener said, “…That’s circumstantial evidence that somebody was giving him or giving her questionable support.” Screeners agreed that coercion to stay on the run generally equated to not being allowed to leave, though several screeners across regions specifically shared that they reframe the question around being allowed to go home at any time. As a Central screener stated, “Yeah, there’s a big difference between coercion and outright kidnapping.” A Southern screener shared similar sentiments about why they reword this item:

“Wouldn’t allow,” they may not take it as they weren’t allowed to go back home, per se, because the person didn’t probably say, “You’re not allowed to go back home.” But, did they feel like they could leave at any time to go back home? When assessing for sexual activities for money, support, or gifts, screeners might ask generally if anything made the youth uncomfortable while they were way and then follow up for detail. Participants shared that money and material items are a typical red flag (e.g., “Money, the money trail is really pretty obvious in a lot of these cases…”). Sometimes this is readily apparent with just the youth (e.g., “…Whether it were stolen or not, it was a gift from somebody…”), while other times screeners have to rely on collateral contacts for their perspective. For example, a Southeast screener shared:

If we have the mother, the parent…telling me, “Oh, she has been in grooming. Somebody has been grooming her –” If she’s telling me, ‘cause I have experienced this, “Oh, yeah. I have friends that like to buy me things,” and she or he doesn’t explain, then like what is the logic? That’s a kind of evidence for me.

Participants had minimal feedback on the overarching indicator of compensation for sexual activity, with a Suncoast screener saying, “…I would judge that – the evidence of compensation for sexual activity based on a lot of other questions that they answer from the other sections.” As in other sections, screeners shared ways they are able to elicit Tool answers for section F through conversation. A Southeast screener explained how they make connections between a youth’s narrative and the items on the Tool:

Again, when I ask them like, “Tell me what happened,” they go,

“Oh, you know, the police took me, and I was like two blocks away from my house.” But I know they were around. And they say like, “Oh, yeah, I took transportation, train,” I know they were out of the city. And then on the 35I, so like, “Were you scared at any time?” If they say yes, so I said, “Were you thinking to go back home? Why you didn’t come back? You maybe wanted to come back but somebody or a situation didn’t allow you to go back to home?” Something like that.

Section G | Sexual Exploitation/Coercion/Control

Screeners from multiple regions perceived that item 37, assessing inability to leave, is similar, if not repetitive, to items in section F assessing coercion to stay on the run. In terms of distinguishing between the two sections, a Southeast screener explains their approach to this item:

Again, I don’t think that I would be that specific initially.

Because, again, this is a direct one. So I think I would ask an open question first, and – “Has anybody ever prevented you from leaving or impeded your ability to walk away?” ‘Cause you might have more of a coercive situation, not necessarily they physically restrain them, but did something else. I think this one is just a little bit too specific, about locking doors, windows. Granted, some questions might trigger a memory.

But using something broader first, and then asking something more specific like this afterwards… In addition, some screeners felt item 37 is vague, leaving room to misinterpret parental discipline (i.e., grounding) as inability to leave. A Northeast screener shared:

Or again because they’re running away all the time the parents are locking. So even though they might tell me yes. My mom used to lock my windows at night all the time ‘cause she don’t want me sneaking out. I don’t – I’ll put that they said yeah but document why that truly was a nose as it pertains to this tool. When assessing for forced identity deception, screeners expressed a need for gathering and documenting more contextual information (e.g., type of document, who helped them get the document). For example, a Central screener noted that falsified documents can be an indicator of either CSEC or labor trafficking and that knowing the type of document (e.g., green card, driver’s license) could provide additional information for their case. A Southeast screener noted that this part of the Tool is reliant on disclosure (i.e., “a statement from the child or their parents”), so they explain their “workaround” to directly asking the item as written:

Yeah, like try a workaround, like, “You have an ID from school? Do you have any other ID?” If this person likes to, I don’t know, take the drugs, alcohol, I maybe gonna ask, “Have you ever go to a bar?”…Oh, yes, I enjoy it.” And then I gonna said like, “Okay, so, how you get the ID?”

Table 7. Rephrasing of Evidence of Sexual Exploitation Items

Region Example Quote

Central …In youth-speak what does it mean to be asked to do something that you don’t want to do? You know what I'm saying? I’m not really sure how to word the question so that they understand that – because there are kids that are sexually exploited and they have enjoyed it. It’s a particularly shaming moment for them. Some don’t want to reshame or continue with that shame. But we also need to find out “What does it mean to you? What does ‘coercion’ mean to you? What does ‘forced to do something’ mean to you?” They may not understand what “force” is in terms of being sexually exploited, especially because if it’s happening in the home, it could be so normalized that it’s not forced and it’s not coercion. Somewhere in there we need to understand what they think those words mean.

Central Those three questions after at the end “when you didn’t want to.” I don’t think that needs to go. It gives very clear indication that maybe they wanted it. That victimizes – it revictimizes the youth so those three definitely need to change…We don’t need to know if they wanted it or not.

Suncoast But I don't ever use – I don't say "pressured." I say, "Have you ever touched someone physically or sexually when you didn't want to." I leave out all those other words…Because most people don't – most kids aren't going to say – "Has anyone ever pressured you?" – they don't want to get somebody else in trouble. So, it's "Have you ever touched someone when you didn't want to?" … I try to leave it as vague as possible, at least to get some of the information, and then follow up with – because it's not my job to determine who is forcing them to do these things. They're not going to – most of them are not going to – that's law enforcement's job. So, I just try to get the answers to at least get law enforcement on the right track.

Southeast 'Cause it almost feels like, when you read it, like you're interrogating them. And that's the only thing that I personally don't like. I don't wanna put a child that's been victimized on the defense. And when you're asking such direct questions, it'll make them uncomfortable.