Across the United States, street-level bureaucrats increasingly engage exploited or trafficked persons. While a great deal of their frontline work remains the same, the terminology used to define their trafficked clients is a critical new addition to their caseloads. In this article, I use the Midwest as a case study for understanding how encounters between service providers and trafficked persons hinge on which definitions are mobilized. Using qualitative data from 42 interviews, I argue that frontline workers use definitions of human trafficking that utilize legal frames or normative judgments to make meaning of their clients’ experiences. While service providers articulated the utility of these definitions, they also addressed moments of friction, when the legal frames they use are in direct tension with their normative judgments. These moments highlight antitrafficking workplace challenges and expose the issues of resource accessibility survivors face when their exploitation does not fit dominant understandings of trafficking. © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

[No Keywords available]

[No Keywords available]