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.
No comments:
Post a Comment