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.
No comments:
Post a Comment