Identifying and Addressing Human Trafficking in Child Welfare Agencies: Final Report

Publication Date: April 27, 2022
The first page of the brief, entitled "Identifying and Addressing Human Trafficking in Child Welfare Agencies: Final Report"

Download Report

Download PDF (13,285.93 KB)
  • File Size: 13,285.93 KB
  • Pages: 110
  • Published: 2022

Introduction

Research Questions

  1. What are current practices among child welfare agencies nationally for screening for human trafficking and subsequent delivery of specialized services for children and youth who are identified as having experienced or at increased risk of trafficking?
  2. How do child welfare agencies with promising screening practices screen for human trafficking and train personnel to implement screening?
  3. What is the relationship between screening and subsequent referrals for, access to, and delivery of specialized services for children and youth identified as having experienced of at increased risk of trafficking?

Human trafficking of children and youth, defined as the exploitation of minors for forced labor or commercial sex, is increasingly recognized as a public health and social justice concern. In recent years, federal lawmakers have highlighted the importance of a comprehensive systems-level response to human trafficking with child welfare as a key player. Several federal policies have defined the child welfare system’s crucial role in identifying and responding to human trafficking involving children and youth. Yet, our understanding of how child welfare agencies identify youth who have experienced human trafficking (or are at increased risk for experiencing human trafficking), train child welfare staff on identification, and subsequently connect youth to services is still in its infancy. A great deal of work is needed to build an evidence base that is sufficiently robust to support the identification and delivery of programs to serve youth in care who have experienced human trafficking or who are at increased risk of human trafficking.

In an effort to address these knowledge gaps, the Identifying and Addressing Human Trafficking in Child Welfare Agencies (IAHT) study conducted interviews with state child welfare leaders from 25 states about how their agencies work to identify and serve children and youth who have experienced or are at increased risk of trafficking.

The IAHT study was conducted by RTI International through a contract from the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in collaboration with ACF’s Children’s Bureau. The IAHT study is being implemented as part of the Domestic Human Trafficking and the Child Welfare Population project.

Purpose

Although state child welfare practice is evolving rapidly in response to the federal legislation (Pub. L. 113-183, Pub. L. 114-22, and Pub. L. 115-123), a recent report to Congress  indicates substantial variation in screening approaches, tools, staffing, training, the ways in which screening is (and is not) integrated into processes and systems, and services available for youth in need. Overall, there is a limited amount of information on promising practices for implementing trafficking screening and service delivery within child welfare agencies. Because of this, many states look to other state child welfare agencies to learn from each other's experiences in identifying and serving this population.

Therefore, the goals of the IAHT study are to better understand how child welfare agencies select and implement human trafficking screening tools and train workers on their use and to explore how youth identified as having experienced trafficking or at increased risk of trafficking are connected to services that meet their needs. This study—and specifically, findings highlighting strategies for identification and response—has the potential to both inform ACF programs and state child welfare agency policy and practice and serve as a resource for child-serving agencies across the country.

Key Findings and Highlights

  • 20 participants reported that their agency accepts cases of child trafficking that are facilitated by a caregiver, a non-caregiver third-party, or when the facilitator is not known. All but one of those participants also noted their agencies accept cases when there is no clear facilitator
    • Of the five participants who reported that their agency only accepts cases involving caregivers, two reported actively seeking to expand jurisdiction via formal proposals.
    • Two other agencies who do not accept child trafficking cases facilitated by non-caregivers described the service pathways they leverage for youth who fall outside of agency scope.
  • Labor trafficking is inconsistently included in policy and screening: 36% (9) of participants reported their agencies do not have an allegation category for labor trafficking. About half (13) of participants’ agencies use tools that screen for labor trafficking.
  • Most participants’ agencies are using screening tools developed internally by the agency or state. Only six participants’ agencies are utilizing validated screening tools, most commonly as optional tools or as an in-depth assessment after a non-validated pre-screening tool.
  • Participants described a need for more inclusive screening tools, including those that include indicators of labor trafficking and familial trafficking and are appropriate for younger (under 13) and male identifying youth.
  • Participants described feedback from staff conducting screening that they need clear, concrete guidance on the tool’s result or outcome (e.g., in some tools, providing a score or outcome algorithm) and agency processes and next steps based for supporting youth based on the result.
  • Most participants’ agencies are screening youth engaged with child welfare for human trafficking experiences when certain events occur or indicators are present (e.g., missing-from-care episode). Eight participants (32%) reported their agency is doing or plans to do some formal universal screening of all youth in care.
  • Participants reported challenges with ensuring frontline staff have received training related to human trafficking given the high rate of turnover and substantial staff workload. As such, some agencies have specialized staff conduct screening or support general staff in screening for trafficking and linking youth to services.
  • Participants reported challenges identifying providers that can serve youth who have experienced trafficking, especially given how frequently service providers change. Agencies use service directories, multidisciplinary teams, and designated human trafficking points of contact to link youth to serves. Agencies reported needing additional guidance related to appropriately vetting providers.
  • There is ongoing debate related to the most appropriate and sustainable balance between services specifically for youth who have experienced trafficking and more generalized services that are also appropriate for youth who have experienced trafficking.

Methods

The IAHT study used semi-structured interviews to address the previously stated aims. RTI conducted primary data collection via one-time, cross-sectional qualitative telephone interviews with experts who have led human trafficking efforts in their state child welfare agencies across 25 states.

All data were collected between March 2021 and February 2022. Prior to their interview, participants were asked to share any material related to screening tools and protocols, case management protocols, descriptions of specialized services or placement resources, and training materials prior to their interview. Interview guides were structured to streamline data collection wherever possible by referencing information from the provided materials. Interview questions were typically open-ended.

RTI used a qualitative content analysis approach, in which summaries were developed by key questions and domains (e.g., challenges, opportunities). This approach allowed for analysis both within and across states, such that the thematic analysis provided a comprehensive picture of each state while allowing the project team to compare responses across states. The results of this study are not designed to be representative of or generalizable to a given subpopulation.

Citation

Charm, Samantha, Latzman, Natasha, Gilot, Bethany & Dolan, Melissa. (2022). Identifying and addressing human trafficking in child welfare agencies: final report. OPRE Report # 2022-72. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Glossary

CSEC:
Commercial sexual exploitation of children
DHTCW:
Domestic Human Trafficking and the Child Welfare Population
FFPSA:
Family First Prevention Services Act
IAHT:
Identifying and Addressing Human Trafficking in Child Welfare Agencies Study
JVTA:
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act
MDT:
Multidisciplinary team
POC:
Single point-of-contact
TVPA:
Trafficking Victims Protection Act