Final Report of the Subcommittee on Domestic Trafficking

APPENDIX II: INPUT FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSIn an effort to learn about <strong>the</strong> differences in how domestic and international victims <strong>of</strong>trafficking are treated in practice, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Subcommittee</strong> solicited <strong>the</strong> input <strong>of</strong> nongovernmentalorganizations that have experience providing services to victims. Thefollowing are <strong>the</strong> responses that were received (on a voluntary basis):NGO INPUT 1: Rachel Lloyd, GEMSI am <strong>the</strong> founder and executive director <strong>of</strong> Girls Educational and Mentoring Services,(GEMS), <strong>the</strong> only non-pr<strong>of</strong>it agency within New York State designed specifically toprovide counseling, support, case management, emergency housing, and viableeducational and vocational opportunities to sexually exploited girls and young women,ages 12-21. GEMS was founded in January 1999, out <strong>of</strong> an overwhelming need forservices for adolescent girls that I observed while working with adult women exitingprostitution. GEMS is located in Central Harlem, but serves girls from all five boroughs<strong>of</strong> New York City. GEMS provides crisis and transitional services to over 170 sexuallyexploited girls and young women each year and also provides preventive education andtraining to over 2,000 youth and adults each year. The majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> girls that come toGEMS are ei<strong>the</strong>r mandated or referred through <strong>the</strong>ir experiences with criminal or juvenilejustice system. Over 90 percent <strong>of</strong> GEMS members are Black, approximately 5 percentare Latino and 5 percent are White.Domestic girls are trafficked from area to area, State to State although this is rarelyrecognized as trafficking per se. A well established trafficking route from Boston to NewYork to Washington, D.C., to Atlanta to Miami brings girls up and down <strong>the</strong> East Coast,<strong>of</strong>ten depending on <strong>the</strong> warm wea<strong>the</strong>r in various locations. Whilst <strong>the</strong>re has been adramatic increase in <strong>the</strong> attention and funding given to trafficking programs nationally,domestic youth continue to be largely ignored in <strong>the</strong> legislation, funding and servicescovered by <strong>the</strong> Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Contrary to being viewed as victims,sexually-exploited young women are seen as criminals or delinquents and as willingparticipants in <strong>the</strong>ir own abuse. It is indicative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> double standards inherent in currentattitudes towards domestic sexually exploited youth that in New York a young personunder <strong>the</strong> age <strong>of</strong> 17 cannot legally give informed consent to sexual contact, yet if <strong>the</strong>young person is deemed as a “prostitute” <strong>the</strong>n not only is she/he believed able to giveconsent, but will also be charged with a violation or misdemeanor. Therefore, under onepart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> penal code a young woman is a victim <strong>of</strong> statutory rape protected from adultexploiters, under ano<strong>the</strong>r she is a “prostitute” automatically mature enough to giveinformed consent to her own exploitationCurrent policies towards, and <strong>the</strong> depiction <strong>of</strong> sexually exploited young women in <strong>the</strong>U.S., are reflective <strong>of</strong> societal attitudes towards class and race and <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>the</strong>y haveon a collective understanding <strong>of</strong> childhood/youth and adolescence. Distinctions are madebetween poor “children” abroad and poor “youth” in <strong>the</strong> U.S., and even at home betweenmiddle-class “victims” and low-income, predominately young women <strong>of</strong> color who are59