Policy Recommendations (Part II)

For my last post, I want to focus on the policy changes that Kentucky stakeholders can make without any legislative changes to the state's CSEC statutes.

Develop new models of gender-responsive treatment and services for CSEC youth: as I have noted in many previous posts, the existing services for CSEC youth in Kentucky are primarily targeted to girls. But there are boys in Kentucky who are involved in the CSEC population and need access to services too. This same problem exists in other states, in part due to a lack of screening or assessment for boys, a bias within agencies about the needs these boys may have, a lack of outreach among anti-trafficking advocates and service providers to boys, and a lack of self-identification as being sexually exploited among boys.

As a result of these dynamics, there are very few evidence-based models for boys who are trafficking victims; in fact, many of the “promising” programs for trafficking victims (not all of them have been rigorously evaluated but they are being replicated) are specifically designed for girls. This problem cannot be completely addressed by stakeholders in Kentucky, but there needs to be more awareness of the issue in this state. There have been positive steps in this direction; for example, Kentucky researchers have already begun interviewing boys in child welfare and the juvenile justice system about their experiences with commercial sexual exploitation. More work in this area needs to continue, and it should be a focus of the state's Human Trafficking Task Force.

Develop more community-based placement options and therapy options for CSEC youth: as I noted in other posts, Kentucky has long relied on residential placement providers in its child welfare system. Some of these residential providers have focused on emergency shelter or crisis intervention centers for CSEC youth, but longer-term community-based shelter (e.g. two-week Safe Houses) are needed in Kentucky. In addition, as Kentucky expands its community-based services in behavioral health, state stakeholders need to examine how they can target these services to CSEC youth.

For youth who are in urban areas, the state can build upon existing networks of treatment providers who provide counseling, emergency services and transition housing, counseling, and victim support groups. However, much of this state is rural – very rural. I’ve driven through I don’t know how many of these fields during my time in Kentucky:

How can CSEC youth in these rural areas get services? This is where therapeutic foster care and quality in-home services become crucial. Identifying foster care parents who have necessary training to foster CSEC youth is crucial for these youth to have good outcomes in the child welfare system. For youth who return to their biological family, family members need in-home services to help the youth in any treatment they may engage with in the community. These services need to be developed in more rural parts of the state.

Provide more training for agency staff and service providers: in addition to child welfare, DJJ, the courts and law enforcement, private residential placement providers need to be trained on human trafficking prevention and treatment practices. If youth in the child welfare system are at risk of trafficking - particularly in group home environments that pimps and recruiters target - staff in these placements need to be trained on how they can work with these youth and prevent them from being further victimized by traffickers or exploiters.

Coordinate the Human Trafficking Task Force with other cross-agency initiatives: as I know from my juvenile justice work, Kentucky has numerous agencies working on child welfare and juvenile justice reform implementation efforts, including the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board, the Juvenile Justice Oversight Council, Foster Care Review Boards, and the State Interagency Council run by Behavioral Health. These interagency groups have committees on coordinating services, improving screening and assessment across agencies, assessing programs, and targeting technical assistance resources to service providers in Kentucky. The state’s Human Trafficking Task Force can coordinate with these agencies to ensure that CSEC issues remain a priority for them, and that they can draw upon resources within these groups to help meet the needs of CSEC youth.

Increase data collection and reporting to the legislature about the characteristics of CSEC cases: currently, the Cabinet's report to the legislature only includes the gender, age and jurisdiction in which the case occurred. Knowing the circumstances in which the youth were trafficked will inform the legislature about further reforms they may consider.


On that note - I want to thank WAPPP and the Cultural Bridge Fellowship program again for supporting my work. It has been a fun summer of research! I will continue to explore this issues when I return to HKS this fall.

Policy Recommendations (Part I)

Photo of Kentucky General Assembly Capitol during Session

What can the Kentucky legislature do about the challenges of implementing CSEC legislation? That's been the question I've been seeking answers to as I determine which policy recommendations may be appropriate for the state.

The sentiment towards HB 3 in Kentucky is still positive, so there is not much momentum to make significant change to the state’s CSEC policies. The legislature has passed additional anti-trafficking bills since 2013, but these bills have focused primarily on enhancing penalties for human traffickers. In 2014, the General Assembly passed SB 184, which allowed for the expungement of non-violent offenses resulting from being a victim of human trafficking and the use of trafficking victimization as an “affirmative defense” against prosecution. In 2015, the legislature passed HB 427, which increased penalties for child pornographers and removed the “age ignorance” defense for child sex offenders. However, neither of these policies deals with the implementation challenges of Kentucky's CSEC reforms.

DCBS has identified 125 CSEC victims since the legislation passed, and its reports to the legislature have not presented any issues with providing care to these youth. These reports do not describe the details of CSEC cases or the youths’ history, but we do know that at least some of these CSEC youth had been in foster care. Considering the research that shows the link between human trafficking and child welfare involvement, this is not surprising. However, it does beg the question, “should all CSEC victims go back into child welfare custody?”

If child welfare custody is not appropriate for these youth, are there organizations in Kentucky that exist (or could be developed) to provide supportive housing for them? One interesting aspect of the CSEC response in Kentucky is that the non-governmental organizations that work with trafficking victims are the same service providers who work with victims of sexual assault or domestic violence. The Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Providers (KASAP) and Catholic Charities are the main trainers of state agencies on human trafficking and HB 3 implementation. KASAP works primarily with adult victims of sexual assault and sex trafficking, but has been involved in the CSEC issue since 2008 as a member of Kentucky's Rescue and Restore task force. Attorneys at KASAP also worked with Rep. Overly and legislative staff to draft HB 3. Child Advocacy Centers across the state provide similar services to KASAP and domestic violence agencies, but they only work with child victims of human trafficking.

Although some of Kentucky's service providers have raised concerns about the lack of attention to young male victims, the majority of the services they provide are targeted to female victims of domestic violence, as opposed to male victims or to older male children of female victims. These non-governmental agencies can provide community-based services for CSEC victims, but they cannot take custody of the youth or provide safe and secure housing environments for youth who are not in DCBS custody.

Unlike DCBS, non-governmental service providers in Kentucky have much more discretion in how they work with CSEC youth. Even if DCBS is not able to substantiate a human trafficking allegation, non-governmental organizations can still work with the youth and provide treatment and victim advocacy support to them. Kentucky’s non-governmental service providers had worked with child victims of human trafficking from 2008-2013, before these youth were required to be placed in DCBS custody.

If CSEC youth cannot live with their families and do not go into DCBS custody, another option for the youth is emancipation. Emancipation would mean that the youth would become his or her own legal guardian while he or she is still a minor. This may be appropriate for older youth, but not younger ones. For these older youth, DCBS could invest resources in supportive independent living options and work with service providers to provide community-based treatment to them. However, the question of what to do with younger victims is still unanswered; DCBS may be the only option for these youth, and some of these youth may be at risk of future trafficking when they are in DCBS foster care or residential placement.

These policy options could address some of the issues of responding to older CSEC youths' needs, but they would require additional resources and training. However, they will not address the issues that younger CSEC victims face. In my final posts this summer, I will focus on policies that could address the needs of these youth in Kentucky, and build support for services across the state.