This document summarizes key aspects of safe harbor laws, which are designed to protect domestic minor victims of sex trafficking. The main points are: 1) Safe harbor laws require that sexually exploited minors be provided specialized services instead of facing criminal charges. They also impose higher penalties on buyers and traffickers. 2) Key elements of safe harbor laws include protecting minors, providing them services, and increasing penalties for traffickers/buyers. Training for law enforcement is also important. 3) Important court cases and studies show that arresting and detaining minor victims is re-traumatizing and ineffective, while specialized programs have improved victims' well-being. Safe harbor laws aim to

1. “We’ve created a dichotomy of acceptable and unacceptable victims, wherein Katya
from Ukraine will be seen as a real victim and provided with services and support, but Keshia
fromthe Bronx will be seen asa ‘willing participant’,someonewho’souttherebecause she ‘likes
it’ and who is criminalized and thrown into detention or jail.”i
Introduction
For manyAmericans,humantraffickingisviewedasa criminal activitythatentails
foreignwomenbeingtakenfromtheirhomesandsoldabroadforsex.Fromtheirperspective,
there isa significantdifference betweenwomenwhoare traffickedfromothercountriestothe
U.S. and the local girlsprostitutingintheirowntowns. The commonpublicperceptionisthat
the prostitutinggirlsintownsacrossthe countryhave chosenprostitution,whilethose sexually
traffickedfromabroadare victimsof coercion,force,andviolence.However,prostitutiononthe
domesticlevelincludescoercion,force,andviolence justasinternationaltraffickingdoes.As
DorchenLeidholdt,the directorof the CenterforBatteredWomen’sLegal ServicesatSanctuary
for FamiliesinNew Yorkhasobserved,“The truthisthatwhat we call sex traffickingisnothing
more or lessthenglobalizedprostitution.” ii
Leidholdtarguesthatinternationalsex trafficking
marketslike domesticprostitutionmarketsbothprofitoff of the girlstheycommercially
exploit.iii
Thoughthe average Americanmayhave theirideafor what sex traffickingis,the United
StatesCode has itsowndefinition. The term sex trafficking is defined as “the recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial
sex act.”iv
This definition covers more than international victims brought into the United States
by force. This definition implies that if the purpose of obtaining a person, whether it be thru
recruitment, harboring or transporting, was to exploit them thru commercial sex acts, then the
situation can be defined as sex trafficking. Therefore, even if a girl choose to enter prostitution
on her own accord, if she at some point wanted to leave and was not able to, or was
transported against her will etc., she is a victim of sex trafficking.
Sadly,the Americanpublicisnotthe onlypeople groupwithamisunderstandingof how
to deal witha traffickedvictim.The traditional law enforcementapproachtoprostitutionplaces
the brunt of the criminal burdenonprostitutingpersonsbyarrestingtheminglaring
disproportiontopimps(i.e.sex traffickers) andcommercial sex buyers.Evidence of thiscanbe
seeninmultiple casessuchasthat of 13-year-oldB.W.and her32-year-oldpimp“boyfriend.”
B.W. wasarrestedfor prostitution,while her“boyfriend”wasnoteveninvestigated.Evenwhen
B.W.’scase wastakento the TexasSupreme Court,hertraffickerwasnevercharged.InLas
Vegas,in2006, 153 minorswere arrestedfortheirinvolvementinprostitutionwhile onlytwo
pimpswere arrestedandzerosex buyersv
.InDaytonOhioPolice authoritiesarrested459
womenonprostitutionchargesin2011, butarrestedonly138 sex buyers. vi
Arrestingthe victimsof prostitutionisfrequentlyineffective. The recidivismrate fora
youthleavingjail ora detentioncenteris50%-70%vii
.With recidivismratesthathigh,itis

2. questionable whetherjail ordetentioncentersare effectingtreatmentfordelinquency. In2004
a studyshowedthatgirlsthat have PTSD (whichiscommoninsexuallyexploitedwomenand
girls) become re-traumatizedwhenenteringajuvenilesystem.viii
Arrestingminorsinvolvedin
prostitutionhasonlyreinforcedtheirmental anguishandfeelingsof unworthiness.
The US federal governmentpassedthe TraffickingVictimsProtectionAct(2000). Thisact
launchedanational anti-traffickingmovementthatworkedtoendsex andlabortraffickingin
the U.S. Overtime advocatesinthe movementrecognizedthatdomesticvictimsof sex
traffickingwere notbeingrecognizedastraffickingvictims. Asanti-traffickingpolicyefforts
shiftedtothe individual 50states,a “Safe Harbor” paradigmwasbirthedwhichisnow making
itsway across the countryand transformingthe wayvictimsof domesticminorsex trafficking
are beingtreated.
What makes a law a safe harbor law?
While there isnostandardSafe Harbor Law model,typicallylawsthatmaybe
categorizedastakinga Safe Harbor approach containthree specificelements.First,theyrequire
that sexuallytraffickedminorsbe givenspecializedservicestohelpthemthroughtheirtrauma
rather thanface adjudicationandincarcerationinjuveniledetentionashasbeenthe
conventional practice. Safe Harborlawsinclude higherfinancial penaltiesforbuyersand
traffickers.These lawsalsotypicallyincludetrainingforlaw enforcementofficialstohelpthem
appropriatelyidentifyandassistdomesticallysex traffickedpersons. In2008 New York became
the firststate to pass a Safe Harbor law.Since theneightmore stateshave passedsimilarlaws:
Washington(2010), Connecticut(2010),Illinois(2010),Vermont(2011),Minnesota(2011),
Massachusetts(2011), Tennessee (2011) and Florida(2012).
Protection of minors and specialized services
As previouslymentioned,one of the primaryaimsof the Safe Harbor paradigmis to
protectsexuallytraffickedminorsbyofferingthemspecializedservicesinsteadof incarcerating
themfor prostitutionoffensesSafe Harborlawsreformexistingcriminal statutesbyprohibiting
the prosecutionof personsunder18 yearsof age on prostitutionrelatedoffenses.While the age
of consentvariesfromstate tostate,ingeneral,safe harborlawscoverall minorsunderthe age
of 18, evenif the age of consentif lessthan18. Statessuch as New York,WashingtonandIllinois
provide intheirSafe Harborlawsthat no one underthe age of 18 may be chargedas a
“prostitute.”ConnecticutandMinnesotacreate adistinctionbygivinggirlsunder16 no charges,
while those 16and 17 year oldreceive “humantrafficking”statuses.
To be considereda“safe harbor”law,the law mustalsogive some sortof specialized
service tominors.Again,thisvariesfromstate tostate.New York’slaw authorizedspecialized
servicesandlong-termcare facilitiesfortraffickedindividualsincludingminors.Alternatively,
Tennessee requiresthatif lawenforcementsuspectsthere issexualabuse inthe formof
trafficking,theyvictimshouldbe giventhe numbertothe humantraffickinghotline and

3. releasedtotheirguardian.Minnesotarequiresthatforfirst offense foranygirl under18 that
she be referredtoservicessuchas CHIPS(Childreninneedof ProtectionorServices)butafter
the firstoffense the judge isnotrequiredto.
Higher penalties for buyers and traffickers
A secondelementcommontomanySafe Harbor Law isthe shiftfromregarding
prostitutingpersonsasthe primarycriminal targets,toemphasizingthe offensesof commercial
sex buyersandpimps.Oftenthe pimporJohnis the lastpersonto getarrested.Thiscan be seen
fromthe case of 13 yearoldB.W. whowas arrestedinTexasas a prostitute while her32year
oldboyfriend/pimpwasnoteveninvestigated.More informationwill be givenonthissubjectin
the keylegislative/judicial decisionssection.
Safe Harbor lawsshiftthe focus fromthe sexuallyexploitedwomentothe traffickersor
buyersbyimposinghigherfinesonsex traffickers,aswell asonthose whosolicitapersonfor
purposesof prostitution. Twostates,MassachusettsandTennessee,establishedaforfeiture of
propertyclause whichallowsthatpropertyusedbysex traffickersorthose solicitingforsex for
purposesof prostitutioncanbe confiscatedbythe state.The state will thensell the property,
and divide the fundsbetweenlawenforcementagenciesandthe traffickingvictim. Illinoishasa
lessstrictpolicy;theyconfiscatedthe carbeingused.Jail time forbothsex buyersandsex
traffickersincreasedineachstate thatpassedaSafe Harbor law.Previously,commercial sex
buyersinConnecticutwere notrequiredtoserve jail timeif theydidnotknow the girl wasa
minor,butaftertheirSafe Harbor law passed,those whopurchasedsex froma minorwill face
prostitutioninthe firstdegree,whetherornottheyknew the prostitutedpersonwasaminoror
not. InWashingtonjohnswere sentencedtoaslittle asone monthinjail,andthiswas oftennot
served. BuyersinWashingtonare now requiredtospendjustundertwoyearsinjail.
Training for law enforcement
The third criteriafora Safe Harbor law are measuresensuringthatlaw enforcement
officialsare trainedtoidentifysex traffickingsituationscorrectly.Safeharborlawsestablish
trainingforlawenforcementofficerstobetterequipthemtounderstandthe complexities
involvedwithminors,prostitution,andsex trafficking.Theyalsoauthorize fundingtoprograms
that helpshutdowntraffickingnetworks.Theseprogramsandtrainingare fundedbythe fines
fromtraffickersandbuyers.
Summary
Offeringprotectionandspecializedservicesfordomestic minorvictimsof sex trafficking,
authorizinghigherfinesandincreasedpenaltiesforcommercial sex buyersandpimps,aswell as
provisionforlawenforcementtrainingare all neededtohelpendthisformof modern-day
slavery.Eachof the nine statesthathave a Safe Harbor law have these three criteriainone form

4. or another.Howevereachstate variesindifferentlevelsof strictnessanddifferentlevelsof
seriousnesswhencarryingouttheirlaws.
Key legislative andjudicial decisions
Texas (2010): B.W. was 13 yearsoldwhenshe wasarrestedfor prostitutionaftersolicitingan
undercovercop. She waslivingwithher32-year-old“boyfriend”(andnotherparents) at the
time. She wasarrestedon prostitutionchargesbuther“boyfriend”wasnotcharged,despite
the fact that he was harboringa minorand undoubtedlyguiltyof atleaststatutoryrape.After
beingsentencedtojail,B.W.requestedanappeal.ix
The SupremeCourtof TexasheardB.W.’s
case anddecidedthatas a 13-year-oldgirl she wasnot able tolegallyconsenttohavingsex,and
therefore couldnotbe convictedforprostitution.Whilethere isno“Safe Harbor”law inTexas,
the trial of B.W. setthe stage for anti-traffickingadvocatestomake the case thatif a childistoo
youngto consentto sex,thenthe childcannotbe chargedfor prostitution. x
In the case of B.W. againstTexas,the Supreme Courtdecidedthatbecause B.W.wasnotold
enoughtoconsentto havingsex,she couldnotbe charged for prostitution,butthatshe mustbe
viewedasa crime victim. Inthat same ruling,the TexasSupreme courtsaid,“The State has
broad powertoprotectchildrenfromsexual exploitationwithoutneedingtoresorttocharging
those childrenwithprostitutionandbrandingthemoffenders”.xi
JonathanTodres,alaw
professoratGeorgiaState University,putsitlike this,“treatingsexuallyexploitedchildrenas
crime victimsdoesnotchange the fact that pimpsandjohnscan be chargedwithsexual
exploitationof aminor.Also,asthe court explains,if the concernisbeingable tohelpthese
children,thenthe juvenile justice systemisnotouronlyoption”.xii
Georgia: A Safe Harbor bill wassubmittedto the Georgialegislaturein2010. However,the bill
failedtopasson the groundsthat the proposedreformswouldallegedlycreate aloophole for
pimpsto exploitminors.The concernwasthatif the minorswere notchargedwitha crime,it
wouldbe easierfortraffickerstoexploitthemandtoconvince themtoprostitute.xiii
The bill
diedincommittee.
Important studies relevant to Safe Harbor Laws
Sexual abuse historyis pertinentfactor: Accordingto Widomand Ames,victimsof childsexual
abuse are 27.7 timesmore likelytobe arrestedforprostitutionthansomeonewhowasnot
sexuallyabusedasa child.xiv
Thisshowsthatsexual abuse historyisastrongfactor in becoming
sexuallyexploited. Again,showingthe linkbetweensexual abuse andcommercial sexabuse isa
studyby Gragg et al.(2007) that foundthat 85% of childrenwhoare sexuallyexploitedhave
beeninvolvedinthe childwelfare systeminsome way.The percentof childwelfare
involvementwasashighas 89% in sevencountiesinNew YorkState.xv
Runaway InterventionProgram (RIP): SupportingTodres’viewthatthe juvenile justice system
isnot the onlymeansfor “helping”sexuallytraffickingminors,astudybySaewycand Edinburgh
(2010) foundthat specializedservicesforsexuallyexploited minorswere able toimprove their

5. qualityof life.Inthe study,participantswereseparatedintothreegroups:1) a group thathad
not beensexuallyabusedinanyway,2) anothergroupthat had beensexuallyabusedbutwere
still livingathome,and3) a groupof sexuallyabusedrunaways. The lattergroupwasmade up
of girlswhohadexperienced“interfamilial andextrafamilial sexual abuse”.Of those inthe third
category,13.8% hadbeenprostituted,6.1% hadbeengangraped,33.8% had beensexually
abusedbymultiple peopleatdifferenttimes,26.8% reportedrepeatedabuse bythe same
person,32.1% had beenassaultedone time byone personand1 girl wasrapedby a stranger.
Some girlsreportedmore thanone type of assaultresultinginacumulative percentagehigher
than 100%.xvi
Each group of girlswas putthrough teststhatmeasureddifferentaspectsof theiremotional
health,aswell asphysical factorssuchas pregnancy,STI’sand othersexual riskfactors.Inthe
study,sexuallyabusedgirlsbetween the agesof 12-15 whohad runawayfromhome (group3)
were connectedwithsupportive environmentsandhelpedtodeveloppositiverelationships
throughthe RunawayInterventionProgram.Thesegirlsalsoreceivedspecializedcounselingand
therapy. Atboth the 6 and 12 monthstest,the girlsparticipatinginthe RunawayIntervention
Project(RIP) hadimproved.Afterone yearof beinga part of thisprogram, the RIPgirls
improvedinareassuchas familyconnectedness,higherschool connectednessandself-esteem,
as well ashavingloweremotionaldistress. Theirscoresapproximatedthose of the non-abused
girls(group1). The RIP girlshadsignificantlylowerscoresinsuicidal ideationandattemptsthan
eventhe non-abusedgirls.Thusthisprogramdemonstratesthatstrength-basedtreatmentfor
sexuallyabusedrunawaysiseffective.Infact,those thatscoredthe lowestinthe beginningof
the program improvedthe mostafter12 months. The program was“achievedata cost that is in
line withcostsforhome visitingandcase managementprogramsforotherat-riskgroups,but
withstrongereffects.”xvii
Detentioncentersand their negative effect: Inthe TexasSupreme Courtdecision,the state
arguedthat arrestinga childwasthe bestthingfor herbecause itseparatedherfromher pimp
and forcedherrecovery.xviii
Yet,astudybythe National ChildTraumaticStressNetworkJuvenile
Justice WorkingGroupshowedthatgirlsthat have PTSDbecome re-traumatizedwhenentering
a juvenile system.Theirstudy showed that,“Girlsinjuvenile justice settingswhohave trauma
historiesneedtofeelphysicallyandpsychologicallysafe.Manycharacteristicsof the detention
environment(seclusion,staff insensitivity,lossof privacy) canexacerbate negative feelingsand
feelingsof lossof control amonggirls,resultinginsuicide attemptsandself-mutilation.”xix
Inthe
case of commerciallyexploitedindividuals,itisbettertoseparate themformotherindividuals
whohave not experiencedthiskindof exploitation.Otherwisethe non-exploitedjuvenilescan
unfairlystigmatize the sexuallyexploitedindividuals.The non-exploitedindividualsoftenfeel
that because the girl waspreviouslyinvolvedinsellingcommercial sex acts,she mustnotbe
opposedtosexuallyexperienceswhile inthe detentioncenter.xx
Similarlythe Bureauof Justice
Statistics conducteda“comprehensivestatistical review andanalysisof the incidentsandeffects
of prisonrape.”Thisstudywhichincludedmore than9,000 girlsshowedthat4.7% reported
unwanted sexual advancesfromdetentionstaff and9.1% reportedunwantedsexual advances

6. fromotherdetainedyouth.xxi
The average recidivismrate foryouthreleasedfromjail isbetween
50-70%.xxii
This highrate is due to the gulf that iscreatedbetweenincarceratedyouthand
positive influencessuchasschool and family.xxiii
The WashingtonState Institute of PublicPolicy
compliedastudyof six community-basedprogramsinthe state of Washingtonthatloweredthe
recidivismrate forjuvenileoffenderswhile costingmuch lessthandetainingyouthindetention
centers.xxiv
Theirreview foundthatcommunity-basedprogramsconnectyouthtotheir
environment,ratherthancreate separationbetweengoodinfluencesandfamily.
Synopsis of State Harbor laws by state
NewYork: New Yorkwas the firststate to pass a “Safe Harbor” law.The bill wassignedintolaw
on September25, 2008.xxv
Accordingtothe New York“Safe Harbor for ExploitedChildrenAct,”
childrenunderthe age of 18 will be giventhe title “sexuallyexploitedchild”ratherthanbeing
chargedfor prostitution. Asaresultof the new provisions,suchchildrenwillbe treatedas
victimsof humantraffickingandtransferredtoservicesthatare specializedfortheirneeds.
Additionally,Section447-Bof the code requires the Office of ChildrenandFamilyServicesto
contract witha not-for-profitthathasexperience workingwithsexuallyexploitedchildrento
create at leastone safe house inan approximate locationforthe state.Thatnonprofitagency
will provide safe long-termhousingwithspecializedservicesforsexuallyexploitedyouth
throughoutthe state. If this safe house becomesfull,andthere isanevidentneedformore
housing,the state will fundmore programs. xxvi
WashingtonState: Washingtonwasnextstate to passa Safe Harbor law.It wassignedonJune
10, 2010.xxvii
Thislaw,SB 6476, directsthatany juvenile underthe age-of-18will be considereda
“childvictim”andshouldreceive accesstospecializedserviceswithexperiencedstaff thathave
trainingwithsexuallyexploitedvictims. The state wasgivenuntil July1,2011, (whenthe law
wouldgointoeffect) tosetup centerscapable of providingsuchservices.Additional provisions
inthislaw increase the finesfrom$550 to $5,000 and stipulate 21-144 monthsinjail for
purchasingsex fromminors.Pimpswhotrafficminorsnow face 93-318 monthsinjail and a new
fine of $5,000. Further,commercial sex buyerswillnolongerbe able touse the excuse thatthey
didnot knowthe age of the minor;insteadthe buyerwill have toprove thathe made a
reasonable attempttodiscoverthe real age of the girl.Thislaw alsorequirespolice officialsto
developedmodelproceduresrelatingtovictimsof domesticminorsex traffickingaswell asto
have theirdepartmentsreceive thistraining,effectiveJanuary1,2011.xxviii
Connecticut: Subsequenttopassage of PublicActNo.10-115, “AnAct ProvidingaSafe Harbor
for ExploitedChildren”,childrenunderthe age of 16 (the state’sage of consent) will nolonger
be charged withprostitution;theywillbe treatedasvictimsof commercial sexual exploitation.
Additionally,minorswhoare 16 or 17 yearsoldare assumedtohave beencoercedinto
prostitutionandalsowill be treatedlike victimsof humantrafficking. Pimpswill servea
minimumof nine monthsinprisonwithoutthe possibilityof theirsentence beingreduced.
Additionally,evenif commercial sex buyersdidnotknow the age of the prostitutedminors,they

7. will still be requiredtopayfinesand/orbe subjectto jail time.There isnothinginConnecticut’s
lawthat requiresspecializedservicesforminorvictimsof sex trafficking.Thislaw waspassedin
June 2010.xxix
Illinois: IllinoispassedaSafe Harborlaw in Augustof 2010. Thislaw presumesthatanyone
underthe age of 18 that has beencaughtin the act of prostitutionisabusedorneglectedand
thusshouldnotbe criminalizedforprostitution,andremovesthe categorizationof “juvenile
prostitutes”fromtheiroriginal code.The state of Illinoisrecognized thatchildrenare notable to
consentto sex bylaw,and therefore are consideredvictimsof domesticminorsex trafficking.
Thislawrequiresthatthe legal toolsthatthe state of Illinoisusestofightthe drugindustryalso
be usedto fightpeople who trafficchildren.Forinstance,asindrugcases,any vehicle usedfor
humantraffickingorprostitution-relatedcrimeswill be confiscated.Additionally,half of the
moneyfromthe sale of these cars will be giventoa fundto supportvictimspecialized services;
the otherhalf will goto supportpolice-relatedoperations. A commercial sex buyerwillno
longerbe able touse the fact that he didnot know the girl’sage as an affirmative defense when
charge withsolicitingaminorforprostitution. xxx
Vermont: H. 153 “AnAct on Human Trafficking”waspassedinJulyof 2011.xxxi
The law
criminalizespimps(i.e.sex traffickers) withamaximumpenaltyof lifeinprisonanda$500,000
fine. Thislawdecreedthatbecause “coercion“isneededforthe case tobe consideredhuman
trafficking,supplyingdrugsoralcohol or withholding orthreateningtowithholdfoodwouldall
be consideredformsof coercion. Thisview oncoercionappliestoall victims,notonlyminors.
Further,minorsinvolvedincommercial sexexchangeswill notbe chargedwithprostitution.
Under thislaw,sex traffickerswill be requiredtopayrestitutiontothe victims.Incasesinvolving
international sextrafficking,eligibilityforrestitutionwillnotbe limitedif the victimreturnsto
theircountryof origin.Anylandlordsthatallow traffickingontheir propertywill be finedand
businessesthatare convictedof humantraffickingwillbe dissolvedinthe civil divisionof the
superiorcourt.The law alsocallsforhotline numberstobe postedinall placesof business,
thoughthisisnot mandatory.It requiresthatthe state’sDepartmentof Labordevelopaplanto
educate employersaboutthe problemof humantrafficking. Thislaw statesthatthe identityof
victimswill notgoon publicrecord.Thislaw offersprotectionforminorsinthe wayof being
givenaffirmative defensesfortheirinvolvementincommercial sex aswell asevidentiary
protectionof theirpast. Thislaw doesnothoweverofferanyspecializedservicestovictims. xxxii
Minnesota: GovernorDayton signedthe HF556 “Safe Harbor for Sexually ExploitedChildren”in
July,2011.xxxiii
Under the newreformsanindividualcannotbe chargedwithprostitutionunless
theyare 18-years-of-age orolder. Additionally,the law excludessexuallyexploitedchildren
underthe age-of-16frombeingdeemed“delinquentchildren.”If the childis16 or 17, and itwas
herfirsttime beingchargedforprostitution,the courtmustreferherto specializedservices.
Aftertheirfirsttime,the judge maydivertthe minortoCHIPS(childreninneedof protectionor
services),butisnotrequiredto.The new law will come intoeffectbyAugust,2014, givingthe
state time to create specializedservices. The Minnesota-basedRIPstudy(seesectiononRIP

8. study) wasinfluential inhelpingpassthislaw.The law alsoaddressed commercial sexbuyersby
increasingtheirpotential finesfrom$250 to a minimumof $500 and a maximumof $750.xxxiv
Massachusetts: H. 3808 was signedinNovemberof 2011.xxxv
Thislaw createsseveral stricter
penaltiesforhumantrafficking,includingmore jail time andhigherfinesfortraffickingaminor.
Propertyissubjecttoforfeiture forthose convictedof humantraffickingoffenses. People that
have beenconvictedof humantraffickingcanno longerqualifyfortemporaryrelease and
penaltiesare increasedforbothbuyersandtraffickers. Purchasingsex fromaminorwill result
ina fine between$3,000 and $10,000. The law alsocreatesa multi-disciplinarianservice teamto
helpminorvictimsof humantrafficking. The multi-disciplinaryteamwill assess the needsof the
domesticminorvictimsof humantraffickingandcreate a service planforeachindividual,and
victimswill be givenaccesstoadvocates.xxxvi
Tennessee: Bill HB 0035 createdstricterpenaltiesforthose whotrytopurchase commercial
sex. Thislawstatesthat personsunderthe age of 18 cannotbe prosecutedasprostitutes. This
lawhas a forfeiture of propertyclause thatcomeswitha1,000 dollarfine forthose who
solicitedaprostitute.Minorswhoare determinedtohave beentrafficked mustbe giventhe
numberto the national humantraffickinghotlineandbe releasedtotheirparentsorlegal
guardians.Thislawdoesnotofferspecializedservicestovictims;italsodoesnotrequire that
lawenforcementbe givenanyformof trainingfor humantraffickingsituations. xxxvii
Florida: HB 99 “Sexual Exploitation”orFlorida’sSafe HarborLaw was updatedandsignedby
theirGovernorJune 14, 2012.xxxviii
Thislaw requireslaw enforcementtotreatdependentvictims
as exploitedvictims,referringthemtospecializedservicesandsafe housesif theyare available.
Thislawalso increasesthe finesfortraffickersandbuyersfrom$500 to $5,000. Thismoneywill
go to fundsafe housesandshort-termsafe houses. Thislaw alsorequiresthatvictimsbe
allowedtoreceive compensation.Thislaw isuniqueinthatitdoesnot pertaintominors
specifically,buttoanyone thatisdefinedbythe state as“dependent.”Inreference to
specializedservicesandotherassistance forvictims,there are clausesthatsay“if available”.The
lawgoesintoeffectJanuary1, 2013.xxxix
Talking points
 Safe Harbor lawsprotectone of the weakestpopulations - prostitutedchildren.Safe
Harbor lawsrespondappropriatelytocommercial sexualexploitationof childrenby
shiftingthe culpabilitytothose whodeserve it—the johnsandpimps.
 Accordingto the NewYork Juvenile Justice Coalition,the costtoincarcerate one
individualinNYState is$125,000 a year. ECPAT (2010) statesthatthe recidivismrate
for a juvenilereleasedfromdetentioncanbe 50%-70%. This“revolvingdoor”costs
statesmore money. The fundsthat wouldbe paidtoa juvenile detentioncenterto
house a prostitutedchildshouldbe redirectedtocoverthe costof deliveringspecialized

9. services.Strafe Harborlawscan save Americansmoneyandcreate effectiveservicesfor
the victims.
 Safe Harbor lawsdo notde-criminalize prostitution;infact,theyraise the penaltiesfor
pimpsandcommercial sex buyersinvolvedinthe sex traffickingaminor. Safe Harbor
lawsplace the correct emphasisondiminishingthe demandwhile protectingthose
exploitedprostitution.
i Rachel Lloyd, Founder of Girls Educational & MentoringService (GEMS) senate hearing, 2010.
iiDorchenLeidholdt, "Prostitution and Traffickingin Women: An Intimate Relationship," Prostitution,
Trafficking,and Traumatic Stress(Binghamton:The Haworth Maltreatment &TraumaPress 2003)p.177:
167-183,
iiiLeidholt, “Prostitution”
ivTraffickingVictims Protection22 USCS § 7102 (9)
v STOP Statistics (As cited by Shared Hope International),Crimes AgainstYouth and Family Bureau of the
Las Vegas Metropolitan PoliceDepartment – 1994-2006.
vi Lucas Sullivan “Policecan’t fix Cronic Prostitution” 2011,
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/police-cant-fix-chronic-prostitution-1199233.html
vii Officeof Juvenile JusticeDelinquency Prevention “Juvenile JusticeBulletin September 2005,
Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of JuvenileOffenders” p.2.(2005),
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdf
viii National Child Traumatic Stress Network Juvenile JusticeWorkingGroup (2004),Trauma among Girls in
the Juvenile JusticeSystem, p.5 Retrieved from
http://www.nctsnet.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdfs/trauma_among_girls_in_jjsys.pdf
ixState of Texas vs.B.W. NO. 08-1044 U.S. p.12 (2010).
x ECPAT-USA “Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children and the recent Texas Supreme Court Decision”
(2010). http://ecpatusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Summary-Paper-on-TX-Case-FINAL.pdf
xiIn The Matter Of B.W. NO. 08-1044 US 12 (2010)
xiiTodres 2010

10. xiii Jonathan Todres, “Change Expolited Kid Laws” (Alanta:ajc,2010) http://www.ajc.com/opinion/change-
exploited-kid-laws-569201.html
xiv Cathy SpatzWidom and Ashley M. Ames “Criminal Conquesences of Childhood Sexualization” Child
Abuse &Neglect 18 (1994):303-318.
xvGragg F., Petta I., Bernstein H., Eisen K, Quinn L. “New York Prevalence Study of Commercially Exploited
Children;Final Report” (2007) p.30. http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/reports/csec-2007.pdf
xviElizabeth M. Saewyc and Laurel D. Edinburgh, “Restoring Healthy Developmental Trajectories for
Sexually Expolited Young Runaway Girls:FosteringProtective Factors and Reducing Risk Behaviors”
Journal of Adlescent Health 46 (2010):180-188
xviiSaewyc and Edinburgh 2010
xviii In The Matter Of B.W. NO. 08-1044 US 3 (2010)
xix National Child Traumatic Stress Network Juvenile JusticeWorkingGroup “Trauma among Girls in the
Juvenile Justice System”,
(2004)p.5http://www.nctsnet.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdfs/trauma_among_girls_in_jjsys.pdf
xx PolarisProject(2008).Overview of State LegislativePolicy to Address the Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of Children- State “Safe Harbor”Laws.
http://www.polarisproject.org/storage/documents/policy_documents/model%20laws/model%20safe%20
harbor%20law%20overview%20final-1.pdf
xxiBureau of justiceStatistics,“Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09”2010
p.1 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf
xxii Richard G.Wiebush et al.,“Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of IntensiveAftercare Program”
US Department of justiceOfficeof JusticePrograms p. 57 (2005)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/206177.pdf
xxiiiWiebush et al.2005
xxiv Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Juvenile Offender Programs:ProgramDescription,Quality Assurance
and
Cost. (Olympia WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007) www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/07-06-
1201.pdf
xxvECPAT-USA“New York Gets Activated!”, 2012http://ecpatusa.org/2012/03/new-york-gets-activated/
xxvi Safe Harbor for ExpolitedChicldren Act, N.Y.C. § 447 (2008)
xxviiSenate Bill Report SB 6476 “Revisingprovisions relatingto sex crimes involvingminors”,2010.
xxviii Shared Hope International “Protected Innocence Initiative; How does SB 6476 ChangeWashington
Law?”,2010 http://www.sharedhope.org/Portals/0/Documents/sb6476points.pdf
xxix An Act Providing ASafe Harbor For Expolited Children.10-115 C.C. §53a-87 2010.
xxxGovernor Quinn Signs Law to Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation,IllinoisSafeChild Act Helps Law
Enforcement Stop Sex Traffickers;Ends Criminal Prosecution of Innocent Child Victims.Government press
release. August 20,2010
http://www.illinois.gov/pressreleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=8790
xxxi ECPAT-USA, “Highlights H. 153; Vermont’s Human TraffickingLegislation”2011
http://ecpatusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Highlights-of-H153.pdf
xxxii An Act RelatingTo Human Trafficking55 V.T.C. § 2651-2656 2011
xxxiii ECPAT-USA “Highlights of Minnesota’s Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children
Law”,http://ecpatusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Highlights-of-Minnesota-LawFINAL.pdf
xxxivHF 556 (2011) Sexually Exploited Youth
xxxvECPAT-USA “Highlights h. 3808;Massachusetts’s human trafficking legislation”, 2011
http://ecpatusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Highlights-of-Minnesota-LawFINAL.pdf
xxxvi A Act Relativeto the Commercial Expliatation of PeopleH. 3808,186th Cong. (2011)
xxxviiBill Summary HB 0035,109th Cong (2011).
xxxviii Kristi House“Background on Florida Safe Harbor Act”,2012
http://www.kristihouse.org/safeharbor.php
xxxix Florida SafeHarbor Act HB 99 (2012)