Identifying best practices for "Safe Harbor" legislation to protect child sex trafficking victims: Decriminalization alone is not sufficient.

Several states have recently enacted "Safe Harbor" laws to redirect child victims of commercial sexual exploitation and child sex trafficking from the criminal justice system and into the child welfare system. No comprehensive studies of Safe Harbor law implementation exist. The nine state Safe Harbor laws enacted by 2012 were analyzed to guide state legislators, health professionals, law enforcement agents, child welfare providers, and other responders to the commercial sexual exploitation of children on the development and implementation of state Safe Harbor laws. The authors conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with Safe Harbor experts in these states. Participants conveyed that Safe Harbor legislation signified a critical paradigm shift, treating commercially sexually exploited youth not as criminals but as vulnerable children in need of services. However, Safe Harbor legislation varied widely and significant gaps in laws exist. Such laws alone were considered insufficient without adequate funding for necessary services. As a result, many well-meaning providers were going around the Safe Harbor laws by continuing to incarcerate commercially sexually exploited youth in the juvenile justice system regardless of Safe Harbor laws in place. This was done, to act, in their view, in what was the best interest of the victimized children. With imperfect laws and implementation, these findings suggest an important role for local and state responders to act together to protect victims from unnecessary criminalization and potential further traumatization.

Incarcerated Youths' Perspectives on Protective Factors and Risk Factors for Juvenile Offending: A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand incarcerated youths' perspectives on the role of protective factors and risk factors for juvenile offending. METHODS: We performed an in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews (conducted October-December 2013) with 20 incarcerated youths detained in the largest juvenile hall in Los Angeles. RESULTS: The adolescent participants described their homes, schools, and neighborhoods as chaotic and unsafe. They expressed a need for love and attention, discipline and control, and role models and perspective. Youths perceived that when home or school failed to meet these needs, they spent more time on the streets, leading to incarceration. They contrasted the path through school with the path to jail, reporting that the path to jail felt easier. All of them expressed the insight that they had made bad decisions and that the more difficult path was not only better but also still potentially achievable. CONCLUSIONS: Breaking cycles of juvenile incarceration will require that the public health community partner with legislators, educators, community leaders, and youths to determine how to make success, rather than incarceration, the easier path for disadvantaged adolescents.