Download ABSTRACT CREATING SAFE FAMILIES: RESOURCE PARENT

ABSTRACT
CREATING SAFE FAMILIES: RESOURCE PARENT
AWARENESS OF COMMERCIALLY SEXUALLY
EXPLOITED CHILDREN (CSEC)
Human Trafficking is one of the fastest growing industries in the United
States. The most vulnerable population is the children who are targeted to become
victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Youth at most risk of Commercial
Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) include children who are neglected or
abused, in foster care, runaways, substance abusers, and homeless youth. In light
of recent changes, the child welfare system (CWS) has begun implementing more
resources to provide support to the child victims. Resource parents are the
individuals who take placement of children in the CWS. These resource families
have been in direct contact with the children and to provide a stable placement and
home environment it is of upmost importance to understand their awareness of
CSEC. In this mixed-method study, a survey questionnaire was distributed to 12
resource parents in the Foster Care Training program to assess their knowledge
and the overall awareness of CSEC. This survey was also assessing their
willingness to accept placement of children who have been victims and who
exhibit challenging behaviors. Findings suggest that most resource parents are
unwilling to accept placement of victims of CSEC and most respondents also
reported a lack of knowledge of CSEC. This research finds that to provide stability
to CSEC victims, additional supports, resources, and education for family resource
parents is necessary.
Maria G. Aguilar
May 2017
CREATING SAFE FAMILIES: RESOURCE PARENT
AWARENESS OF COMMERCIALLY SEXUALLY
EXPLOITED CHILDREN (CSEC)
by
Maria G. Aguilar
A thesis
submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Social Work
in the College of Health and Human Services
California State University, Fresno
May 2017
APPROVED
For the Department of Social Work Education:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student
meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the
university and the student's graduate degree program for the
awarding of the master's degree.
Maria G. Aguilar
Thesis Author
E. Jane Middleton (Chair)
Social Work Education
Cheryl Whittle
Social Work Education
Maggie Armistead
Social Work Education
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER’S THESIS
X
I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in
its entirety without further authorization from me, on the
condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction
absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of
authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must
be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I thank God for His continued presence in my life. Without the
strength that I found in Him, I would not be here standing tall and proud of the
achievements I have been blessed to complete. An enormous thank you to my
parents for their amazing support in achieving my higher education, as well as the
help they provided me with my children. Los amo tanto! Estoy tan feliz de
tenerlos a ustedes dos como padres. Gracias por siempre estar en mi vida y por
siempre recordarme que yo puedo alcanzar mis metas con la ayuda de Dios.
The greatest accomplishments in my life are my children, AJ and Faith. I
love you both so much. We have made it past a chapter in our lives that was
difficult but never unattainable. Mommy did this for you both to know, it is
possible if you work hard and never give up on what you set your mind on doing.
You two have gone through this program with me and regardless of the situation,
you both were always first and foremost on my mind and in my heart. I love you
forever, I’ll like you for always, as long as I’m living, my babies you’ll be.
To the rest of my family: my brothers, my in-laws, my niece, my amazing
and supportive friends - Thank you. You provided a shoulder to cry on and played
an important and vital role to get me to the end of the finish line. Thank you for
picking up with my children when I needed those extra hands to hold them. Thank
you for caring for me and for my little monsters. You are all so important to me. I
appreciate and love every single one of you. To You, thank you for allowing me to
vent my frustrations and for always knowing that I could do this program.
To Dr. Middleton, Dr. Whittle, and Maggie Armistead – thank you for your
constant feedback and support to finish this thesis. I could not have done this
without your advocacy. To the Title IV-E office staff, you guys are amazing! I
v
appreciate the long talks off the edge of drowning in the tears the program has
made me shed.
Thank you all for the countless support, love and inspiration you have
given me throughout these gruesome years.
Maria Aguilar
May 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Background ....................................................................................................... 1
Affected Population .......................................................................................... 2
Scope of the Problem ........................................................................................ 3
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 3
Methods ............................................................................................................. 4
Summary ........................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 6
Background ....................................................................................................... 6
Theoretical Frameworks.................................................................................. 12
Feminist Theory .............................................................................................. 12
Traumatic Bonding Theory ............................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 16
Background ..................................................................................................... 16
Purpose and Background ................................................................................ 17
Participants ...................................................................................................... 18
Methods ........................................................................................................... 18
Research Design .............................................................................................. 19
Variables ......................................................................................................... 19
Potential Benefits ............................................................................................ 19
Potential Risks ................................................................................................. 20
Summary ......................................................................................................... 20
vii
Page
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................................... 21
Background ..................................................................................................... 21
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 21
Demographics ................................................................................................. 22
Survey Questions 1-9 ...................................................................................... 22
Summary ......................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 36
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................... 36
Implications for Social Work Practice ............................................................ 37
Findings Relevance to Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Literature .... 38
Recommendations for Policy .......................................................................... 39
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................. 40
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................... 40
Conclusion....................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 42
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 46
APPENDIX A: COVER LETTER TO SPECIALIZED FOSTER PARENT
TRAINING PROGRAM AND RESOURCE PARENTS .......................... 47
APPENDIX B: RESOURCE PARENT SURVEY: AWARENESS OF CSEC .... 50
APPENDIX C: LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM FRESNO STATE FOSTER
PARENT TRAINING PROGRAM ............................................................ 56
APPENDIX D: HUMAN SUBJECTS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ....... 58
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Perceptions of Resource Parents ............................................................. 31
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background
The human trafficking business is considered modern slavery. The
terminology “human trafficking” is an umbrella term for various kinds of
exploitation of persons. Human trafficking encompasses sex trafficking, labor
trafficking, child soldiery, bonded labor, and organ trafficking. It is an inhuman
and criminal industry that conceals and exploits millions of individuals in and
outside of the United States of America. Of these millions of individuals, the most
vulnerable and victimized are women and children. This method of exploitation
intersects different areas that make these individuals more susceptible to such
exploitation such as socio-economic status, educational-level, abuse, violence, and
gender. In the United States, recent sting operations by local law enforcement such
as the most recent Tulare County “Baby Face Operation,” which brought media
attention to the local children under the age of 18 who are forced into prostitution,
pornography, stripping, escorting, and sex tourism through the means of social
media. The commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) is extortion
perpetuated towards children through the use of violence, fraud and intimidation.
The United States is one of the top destinations for human trafficking with
reports of trafficking in three major areas of California. Human trafficking is
receiving increased attention in the United States due to the media attention which
in turn is informing the public of how prevalent this problem is and how it’s
affecting our communities. According to the National Human Trafficking
Resource Center (2014), the state of California has the highest reporting of human
trafficking and CSEC reports. California’s most vulnerable cities to be
2
experiencing human trafficking are Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego
(Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2009).
Estimates and details about human trafficking remain obscure. Even at a
global level, the estimates of individuals used as slaves are still yet to be known
(Logan, Walker, & Hunt, 2009). There are several inaccurate estimates and limited
research about modern day human slavery. There is also lack of information on
resource parents providing placement to children who are victims of this form of
slavery and extortion. The more recent attention has provided the Child Welfare
Agencies with funds to create programs to address the needs of children who are
suspected victims or identified victims of CSEC. There is more slavery now than
there was any other time in human history. There are currently 27 million victims
of human trafficking globally (National Human Trafficking Resource Center,
2014). Human trafficking is the third largest international crime industry. An
estimated annual worldwide profit of $44.3 billion is made from persons trafficked
globally (Hepburn & Simon, 2010).
Affected Population
Human trafficking and Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
are in direct correlation with foster care children. Children who have had contact
with the child welfare system have been exposed to trauma and other neglect that
places them in situations more vulnerable to continued exploitation. Foster care
children do not have secure attachments that can create a vulnerable subject for
CSEC. Resource parents may be unwilling to accept children in their home with
characteristics that place themselves in dangerous situations. Resource parents find
themselves reluctant to provide a safe home environment to the children who are
suspected or confirmed victims of CSEC due to their lack of awareness. The
3
resource parents are at times unable to differentiate the normal development of a
young adolescent and the development of a traumatized adolescent, therefore,
placing the foster care child in a dangerous situation. The foster child may become
more vulnerable in group home placements.
Scope of the Problem
Recently, CSEC has become a problem with a lot of media attention.
Children in foster care have become vulnerable to yet another form of abuse. This
abuse is called CSEC which uses children’s bodies for financial gain by a
trafficker. The research is limited to exploring how resource parents can create a
better outcome for this vulnerable population. Resource parents are unable to see
the underlying issues in those suspected and identified CSEC victims, therefore,
creating a problem in keeping children in a safe and loving environment. The
research will help identify how to create a specialized unit of resource parents for
children suspected or identified as CSEC.
Theoretical Framework
This study focused on resource parents in relationship to their level of
awareness and barriers in the housing of CSEC suspected or identified victims. In
this study, theories about the impact of Feminist Theory and Traumatic Bonding
Theory are examined in relation to the prevalence of CSEC among children and
females. The growing use of cell phones and internet has made sexual trafficking
more accessible. According to Feminist Theory, human trafficking exploits
females predominately due to societal male dominance and violence towards
women. Many studies have reported the substantial gender based crime towards
women. Through the use of violence, coercion, and manipulation, many females
are forced into exploitation. Traumatic Bonding Theory describes the
4
psychological effects of relationships between victims and their traffickers. This
theory helps explain the children’s lack of love or misunderstand of what good
relationships look like and they must relearn their attachment styles with the help
of their care providers.
Methods
A study was conducted on resource parents and their degree of knowledge
about CSEC by the use of surveys. The study used a mixed-method approach. The
surveys focused on resource parents and their knowledge of CSEC. Resource
parents were invited through an email invitation to complete the voluntary survey.
The survey was administered anonymously through the Fresno State software
program Qualtrics. The primary research questions that this study was sought to
answer were: What is the current level of awareness of resource parents in CSEC?
What are the barriers to the creation of a permanent plan for CSEC victims and
vulnerable populations?
The survey examined participant’s level of awareness and knowledge of
commercially sexually exploited children. It also examined self-perceived barriers
by resource parents when making the decision to house possible or at risk victims.
The independent variables are educational levels, years of providing placement,
gender, the level of training, and experience with this population. The dependent
variables were the knowledge of resource parents, their awareness about victims
and their assessment of their ability to assist in stabilizing an identified victim.
Summary
The limited research available on CSEC and resource parents describes
barriers to identification of CSEC victims. The research is limited regarding
identifying victims and at risk children in the social service arenas that create a
5
limit of housing available due to the characteristics that represent CSEC. Sexual
exploitation of children is a worldwide problem with the exact numbers of victims
unknown. Many children who are victims may present with common factors that
child welfare workers typically assess due to the nature of their work. When social
workers do not have proper training and knowledge about the victims, further risk
and exploitation may happen unknowingly. This study examined the current level
of knowledge and barriers in relation to identifying homes for possible victims.
The participants of this study are current resource parents. The following chapter
will describe theoretical and empirical research related to the commercial sexual
exploitation of children and current gaps in the research literature.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Background
Human Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
(CSEC) is not a new social problem and community understanding about the issue
has expanded. According to Varma and Thomson (2011), CSEC can be defined as
sexual abuse to a child or adolescent for financial gain. This definition can also
encompass the following crimes against children: recruiting, enticing,
transporting, for purpose of sexual exploitation either through prostitution or
survival sex. Survival sex was recently included in the definition as it is used by
youth who are homeless or runaways to survive on the streets. Runaway and
homeless youth have engaged in some forms of prostitution for means of survival
(Pauli, 2014). CSEC youth are at times controlled by individuals who prey on
victims who have come from unimaginable circumstances. It is reported minors
can be controlled via pimps, strip clubs, massage parlors, internet sex sites and
through pornography (Cole, Sprang, Lee, & Cohen, 2016). The three key
ingredients to CSEC are supply, demand, and the distributor (Roe-Sepowitz,
Gallagher, Risinger, & Hickle, 2015). There is currently a great demand for
young girls for sexual preference which lead pimps and traffickers to begin their
luring process of those that fit the description.
The United States has seen a huge rise in children who are missing and in
turn become exploited. In 2014, the National Center on Missing Exploited
Children (2016) received 1.1 million reports of sexual offenses against children
which included apparent child sexual abuse images, online enticement, sex
trafficking and child molestation. A child is inherently more vulnerable than adults
to deception and manipulation making youth more exposed to exploitation due to
7
their tendency toward risk-taking behaviors and impulsivity (Varma, Gillespie,
McCracken, & Greenbaum, 2015). Most adolescents and preadolescents are
developmentally struggling with identity issues which makes them more
vulnerable to exploitation. Besides experiencing developmental disturbances, such
youth will not learn how to handle their own emotions in healthy ways. Cole at al.
(2016) stated youth exploited in commercial sex have more than likely been
exposed to sexual abuse and are confused about what constitutes kindness,
intimacy, and safety. The business of Commercial Sex Exploitation is booming.
Child and youth trafficking is considered one of the fastest growing industries in
the world (Pauli, 2014). The revenue brought in by trafficking of children varied
between $12 million to $3.1 billion a year (Betz, 2012). Pimps and traffickers use
the tactic of victimizations to lead young individuals astray. Traffickers also use
distrust to their advantage which create further isolation and alienation of the
youth from their parents or guardians (Cole et al., 2016). Traffickers will also use
other recruiting efforts to try to get the young adult to engage in prostitution. RoeSepowitz (2016) has reported utilization of fast money, promises of an exciting
lifestyle, offering a false sense of empowerment, and providing the victims a sense
of belonging. Due to utilizing brainwashing techniques, targets are persecuted
which impacts victims to have a damaged sense of self, compromised
interpersonal boundaries and distrust of others (Cole, 2005). Traffickers will use
media, fake job announcements, and other forms here a ridiculous amount of
money is being promised. Those in foster care and other youth will become
enticed by these false promises and more than likely fall for the lies they are told.
Child Protective Service agencies (CPS) usually do not become involved in
human trafficking and sex trafficking cases as the children identified are not being
victimized by a parent or guardian in the home, rather an outsider (Havlicek,
8
Huston, Boughton, & Zhang, 2016). Agencies are mandated to investigate
interpersonal and intra-familial child abuse allegations which would include a
parent, guardian or in home caretaker. Awareness of child sex trafficking is the
most important step towards elimination of the problem. CSEC is now being
considered in screening as a new unit within CPS. This new unit is creating
recognition of at risk youth warranting a larger involvement of this larger public
health issue.
The most vulnerable populations, according to various researchers,
correlated with high rates of parental substance abuse and frequent runaway
behavior (Varma et al., 2015). Others report that CSEC victims at times will reveal
having had an extensive history of violence, substance use, and runaway behavior
(Zuravin, & DePanfilis, 1997). Also, CSEC victims sometimes have interacted
with law enforcement in child protection cases. (Havlicek et al., 2016). It is
reported that children as young as 12 years of age are at risk of becoming sexually
exploited. Amongst the most vulnerable population are youth who are in the foster
care system. Cole et al. (2016) have reported that even without proof of force,
fraud, or coercion such youth are without a doubt considered victims because the
individuals are under 18 years of age. Minors are unable to consent to commercial
sex. Data show that 1 in 6 runaways who were reported missing to NCMEC
(2016) in 2014 were also likely sex trafficking victims. This number has gone up
from 1 in 7 in 2013. Of these children, 68% are likely to become sex trafficking
victims and were also in the care of social services or foster care when they ran
(NCMEC, 2016). Cole et al. have also reported that most of the youth exploited in
commercial sex acts are more likely to be involved in adult or juvenile justice
system. Foster youth are amongst the most vulnerable but those that are not foster
youth also experience sexual exploitation. However, it is reported those youth may
9
be more difficult to identify as they may not have the same actions as those with
overt behavioral problems (Cole et al., 2016). For example, Havlicek et al.
reported that the Preventing Sex Trafficking Act was created to specifically target
the groups of children and young adults that are in out-of-home care and under age
18. This act was also designed to help children not placed in out-of-home care
with an open case family as well as current and former youth in out-of-home-care
up to 23 years of age who are receiving social service program help.
The research finds that the foster youth in care, as current clients or former
foster youth, are among the most vulnerable to sex trafficking. Some foster youth,
Havlicek et al. (2016) have reported, may be at elevated risk of commercial sexual
exploitation during and following out-of-home care. Statistics indicate that
approximately half of the sexually exploited children on the streets today were at
one time living in foster care or a group home overseen by the state (Junior
League of Los Angeles, 2015). Traffickers find foster care children and group
homes to be breeding grounds for their next victims. The research finds that
dependent youth are susceptible to abuse and maltreatment. These children are so
desperate to be loved and find that most will go along with anything to feel
wanted, cared for, and special. Advocates have found that early recognition of risk
factors is important for prevention and early intervention.
Many incidents of sexual exploitation go unreported. Data in regards to the
number of sexually exploited children and youth are not readily available. What
can be revealed is that there has been increasing awareness of the human
trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children in the United States.
With this being said, recent laws have passed to make youth and children immune
to prosecution on prostitution charges since minors are too young to legally
consent to sexual activity with adults (Havlicek et al., 2016). California recently
10
passed Senate Bill 1322 which prohibits law enforcement from arresting people
under the age of 18 for soliciting or loitering with intent. This senate bill shields
the youth found in such a situation from criminal penalties. Advocates argue that
young sex workers should be treated as victims, not criminals, as most are being
coerced into this profession.
The number of court dependent children requiring a foster care home is
growing along with the number of victims of Human Trafficking and Commercial
Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC). Resource parents are tasked with
providing placement of children who are vulnerable to human trafficking and
CSEC or have been victims of this form of abuse. As mentioned before, there is an
increase of children who are in need of out-of-home care. The research found that
423,773 children are currently reported to be in foster care in the United States. Of
these, 72% or more of these children live in foster care homes (Cooley & Petren,
2011). Cooley and Petren reported that resource parents are front line care and the
ones that face the daunting challenge of parenting the children in their supervision.
In order to preserve the current services of resource parents and to continue
recruitment this research is dedicated to finding out what supports or resources
would help retain the services of these parents as well as find what the level of
awareness exists among resource parents. Many times, resource parents will hear
the words “runaway” or “AWOL” (defined as absent without permission to leave)
when a social worker is describing what the child’s behaviors are exhibited and
the parent will decide that the child, who needs immediate placement, is not a
good fit for their family (Rhodes, Cox, Orme, & Coakley, 2006).
Most of the children who are potential victims of Commercial Sex
Trafficking will display the following types of behavior that foster families find
11
extremely challenging. Such behaviors and possible trafficking indicators are red
flags for CSEC:
Leaves home frequently without authorization and for a significant
periods of time
Uses street slang for sex work
Has significantly older partner
Lies about age and carries fake form of identification
Indications of domestic violence/partner violence
Reluctant to discuss how they have access to money
Has old or new injuries without real explanations
Exhibits overt sexualized behaviors
Has suspicious tattoos or burn marks
Has had multiple sexually transmitted infections and/or abortions
Shows minimal interest in school or does not attend (United States New
York Office of Children and Family Services, n.d.).
Commercially sexually exploited children often include children who have
a history or open case with Child Protective Services. Nearly two thirds of cases
with an investigated allegation of human trafficking also had a significant
maltreatment history such as neglect or abuse (Havlicek et al., 2016). The need for
research is to explore the level of awareness amongst resource parents in order to
find ways to recruit and retain these individuals for the most vulnerable population
of child sexual exploitation. According to Havlicek et al. nearly three quarters of
children who were placed in foster care for a short period of time experienced a
high degree of placement instability. Many of the youth in care will create an
atmosphere to push away the family that is placed to assist the child in their most
difficult time. The need to increase the understanding of human trafficking and
12
commercially sexual exploitation to resource families as well as find if there is a
possibility of creating specialized CSEC resource homes.
Theoretical Frameworks
The theories suggested in this section have been used to explain why
human trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children still exists
throughout the world as well as how resource parents can help a youth stabilize in
their environment. The following theories suggested in this chapter are Feminist
Theory and Trauma Bonding Theory. This section will include empirical research
focused on studies with victims and family resource parents. The last section will
provide a summary of the chapter.
Feminist Theory
Feminist Theory, in regard to human trafficking, focuses on and addresses
the inequalities of trafficked disadvantaged individuals. Jackson and Jones (1998)
report, “Feminist Theory is concerned with understanding fundamental
inequalities between women and men with analyses of male power over women. It
is the basic premise that male dominance originates from the social, economic and
political arrangements to specific societies” (p. 12). Literature indicates that most
victims are girls and women. The U.S State Department reports that each year
between 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders and,
of the estimated of victims, 80% are women or girls (National Human Trafficking
Center, 2004). Data on age of entry into commercial sexual exploitation show that
females involved were introduced into the commercial sex industry between the
ages of 12 and 14 (NHTC, 2004). Historically, women have been marginalized
from means or power and have unequal power relationships with males in almost
all societies. The growth of the billion-dollar entertainment and sex industry has
13
been based on male-centered thought. The presumed traits of masculinity are seen
in most societies. Socially determined, male dominance and female subornation
are marked by gender relations (Expert Group on Strategies for Combating
Trafficking of Women, & Children, 2003, p. 13). The unequal status of women in
society and the harmful stereotypes of sexual commodities lay foundational roots
for the trafficking of women.
Whether for entertainment, violence, or other purposes, male sexual
demand drives men into sex establishments such a brothels or other arenas where
women and girls could be a considered a commodity. Almost every country in the
world has areas that are recognized for its high volume traffic of money
production of women and girls. Another aspect to consider is that of physical
violence against women. Lamichhane, Puri, Tamang, and Dulal (2011) estimated
that 12 million people face sexual violence each year. This included interaction
with girls under the age of 18 accounts for 12% to 25% of the victims in the
United States (Lamichhane et al., 1999). Globally, at least one woman in every
three is beaten, raped, or otherwise abused during her lifetime (Heise, Ellsberg, &
Gottemoeller, 1999). This provides a background for traumatic bonding theory
discussed later in this chapter.
In current societal views, oppression and violence against girls and women
have been advertised and at times become an acceptable action. Society also views
the oppression and violence in the form of objects to promote products,
advertisements, music, clothing, ideas, and messages that constantly undervalue
females. According to the casual model for the normalization of violence,
exposure to violence leads to weak cognitive self. The long-term effects of sexual
abuse during childhood are strongly affected by appraisals and mental
reconstructions of the event (Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2006). Young girls may
14
begin to normalize behaviors of violence and sexual exploitation to cope with
negative feelings. Their normalizing comes back to having created an insecure
attachment at a young age which, in turn would, make the child a vulnerable target
for CSEC and other forms of human trafficking.
Traumatic Bonding Theory
The use of manipulation and grooming is often used by pimps or traffickers
to lure vulnerable victims. Trauma bonding is the unique relationship and
interaction that develops between the victim and abuser (Kurst-Swanger &
Petcosky, 2003). Kurst-Swanger and Petcosky explained that the relationship
“develops between two persons where one person intermittently harass, beats,
threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other” (p. 37). This relationship has also been
referred to as Stockholm Syndrome in which “both child and adult victims of
human trafficking may experience traumatic bonding, experiencing terror toward
their captors, but also gratitude for supposed favors” (Loue & Sajatovic, 2012, p.
1). The victim of Human Trafficking or CSEC will begin to believe the lies their
traffickers are telling them.
This interrelation highly depends on power and dominance. In many
trafficking cases, many victims endure physical and violent abuse that contributes
to bonding with their trafficker. The bond between victims and traffickers
develops into a strong emotional tie that is powered by cognitive distortions.
Kurst-Swanger and Petcosky (2003) discussed the “emotional dependency”
between the abuser and the victim. Trauma bonding is based on emotional
dependency due to an intermittent reinforcement that involves highly positive and
negative abuser-victim interactions. It is reported that exploited runaways typically
are victims unwilling to cooperate due to the exploitive tactics of traffickers and
15
physical attachments or trauma bonds that are developed during the victim
perpetrator relationship (Reid, 2013). Most participants will insist they were
engaging in prostitution to help their “boyfriends” or that they wished to do it to
gain financial security. Most minors often minimize or deny their sexual
victimization and the majority did not view themselves as a victim, with most
defending the trafficker (Reid, 2013).
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Background
Identifying a victim of CSEC will increase the effectiveness of social work
services workers and in turn help the child find a permanent and stable home that
is able to provide protective factors for children with risk markers. Reid (2011)
stated that individual risk markers for CSEC victims include “female gender,
history of abuse or sexual victimization, being a runaway or thrown away youth,
gang association, drug dependency, and caregiver dysfunction such as domestic
violence, substance abuse, or mental illness” (p. 146). There are a few studies that
focus on the level of awareness within the foster care system about human
trafficking and Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC). Most of the
literature focuses on the level of awareness and knowledge on the part of social
workers about commercially sexually exploited children. Typically, when children
are abused, child welfare workers are the first to respond. Child welfare social
workers are accountable for evaluating the situation and using appropriate
interventions as well as placing children in the home of resource parents where
they can stabilize.
Social workers typically work with children who have experienced trauma,
homelessness, abuse, and substance abuse. Child welfare social workers hold a
vital role in identifying and assessing possible at risk or victims of commercial
sexual exploitation. This chapter describes the reasons and background for this
study and also includes content on: purpose and background, participants,
methods, variables, instrument, potential benefits, potential risks, and
compensation to subjects. This chapter will also discuss limitations and summary.
17
Purpose and Background
Victims of CSEC are often recruited by traffickers from within the child
welfare system. As stated in chapter 2, research has suggested that resource
parents may lack sufficient training and knowledge about CSEC, therefore
limiting their ability to house commercially exploited children and their
willingness to keep the children in their home permanently. This lack of
knowledge and the mishandling of children can place victims at a greater risk.
According to the United States Department of Justice (n.d.), commercially
sexually exploited children are coerced into prostitution, pornography, and
trafficking for sexual slavery and ultimately profit. As reported by researchers and
child advocates, “CSEC mostly affects: runaway and homeless youth, children
who have been sexually, physically, and emotionally abused; and children who are
vulnerable, easily controlled and manipulated by an adult looking to make a
profit” (Dank, 2011, p. 1). It is important to determine the degree of CSEC
awareness among resource parents to determine if they are equipped to housing
possible victims. There is a need to identify specialized homes to take placement
of the vulnerable population of children in foster care. There is a need to identify
possible barriers that prevent resource parents from identifying victims so social
service agencies can better prepare future trainings and education to assist social
workers in working with possible victims.
The purpose of this mixed method study is to examine resource parents’
awareness and ability to identify and properly house victims of commercially
sexually exploitation. The following research questions are addressed in this
study:
18
What is the current level of awareness of resource parents in CSEC? What
are the barriers to the creation of a permanent plan for CSEC victims and
vulnerable populations?
Participants
The participants for this study are resource parents who are partners with
the child welfare system. These individuals who voluntarily bring the possible
victims into their homes due to their trauma and vulnerabilities face various
challenges. Many victims are children and youth who have faced trauma, have run
away, engaged in substance abuse, and other types of abuse that place a child at a
higher risk for exploitation. Therefore, it is important to assess the level of CSEC
awareness among resource parents. It is this researcher’s goal to have a total of 10
resource parents from a Foster Family agency in Fresno and some county homes
recruited from the Foster Parent Training Academy office involved in this study.
The researcher provided a copy of the cover letter for this study to the director of
the Specialized Foster Parent Training Program and family resource parents (see
Appendix A).
Methods
The data used in this study were obtained from 12 family resource parents
from foster family agencies and county homes. The director of Specialized Foster
Parent Training Project sent an email to all resource parents who are possibly
interested in participating in this survey and are also were willing to take youth
from ages 10 to 18. Surveys (see Appendix B) were sent out via Qualtrics. A
deadline was provided for the resource parents. After the completion of surveys,
the researcher printed the results and place them in a safe and locked location.
Resource parents were offered a small compensation of a $5 gift card and a gift
19
certificate to a restaurant. A letter of support from the director of the Specialized
Foster Parent Training Project is displayed at the end of the thesis (see Appendix
C) along with the certificate of completion for doing research with human subjects
(Appendix D).
Research Design
A survey design was used for this study with descriptive mixed-methods
approach. The survey will assess the level of awareness of Commercially Sexually
Exploited Children (CSEC) among resource parents and barriers that inhibit
housing for these children in the child welfare system. Resource parents included
foster family agency homes as well as county homes in Fresno County.
Variables
In this study, the dependent variables were the knowledge of resource
parents, their awareness about victims and their assessment of their ability to assist
in stabilizing an identified victim. The independent variables were educational
levels, years of providing placement, gender, level of education, and experience
with this population.
Potential Benefits
Participation in this study will help increase knowledge among foster care
services and providers about commercially sexually exploited children. It also
serves to increase knowledge about barriers in identifying victims and possibly
will result in the implementation of future interventions in child welfare agencies.
This may help future child welfare social workers to provide more detailed
trainings on the commercial exploitation of children for the county homes as well
as foster family agencies. It will also help child welfare social workers identify
20
the importance of the care providers’ role in addressing this huge issue. Lastly, the
results from the study may provide enhanced specialized services geared towards
at risk and CSEC victims.
Potential Risks
The participants in this study faced minimal risks while filling out their
surveys. The surveys were anonymous and participants did not provide identifying
information other than gender, age group, the level of education, and years as a
foster care provider. Also, data were kept in a stored locked location to which only
the researcher had access. Participation in this study did not affect their
relationship with the county in which they provide housing. At the conclusion of
this study, any information that could identify the respondent was destroyed.
Summary
There is a lack of research on the level of awareness on the part of resource
parents about commercially sexually exploited children and the ability to help
identified or vulnerable populations stabilize in a home. The study identified two
questions that assessed the level of awareness among resource parents: What is the
current level of awareness that resource parents have regarding CSEC? What
barriers do identified CSEC victims face when placed in a foster care home? The
researcher used previous instruments and reworded some of the questions to fit
this specific study.
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Background
For this mixed method study, a total of 12 participants were recruited from
the Foster Parent Training Academy in the Central Valley to explore the
awareness of resource parents of Commercially Sexually Exploited Children
(CSEC). This chapter describes the demographic information of the 12
participants and it explores the two research questions identified in chapter 1.
These questions include: What is the current level of awareness of foster care
providers in CSEC? What are the barriers to the creation of a permanent plan for
CSEC victims and vulnerable populations?
Introduction
This chapter presents the data gathered from 12 resource parents from both
county and foster family agency homes in the county of Fresno. The purpose of
this research study was to better understand the awareness of resource parents
regarding Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC). The researcher
conducted surveys with participants to collect in-depth information about the
resource parent awareness of CSEC. This chapter will provide demographic
information about the participants and identify important themes that emerged
from the surveys, such as the need for additional resources, support, and education
of CSEC to better assist the resource parent population. The additional aspects of
their experiences as resource parents will also be discussed including their
challenges in achieving providing stability to children who are considered among
the most vulnerable population to Human Trafficking and CSEC. Finally, this
section will include the resource parents’ perceptions of a 7-day notice as well as
what they have learned or come to know about CSEC youth.
22
Demographics
The 12 participants in this research study were resource families who
currently reside in Fresno County. All participants were current resource parents
who had been involved with foster youth. Of the 12 participants, ten were female
and 2 were male participants. Ten of the participants were married, one was a
currently single individual and one was widowed. At the time of the interviews,
six (50%) of the participants were between the ages of 41 to 50, four (33.33%) of
the resource parents were between the ages of 31 to 40, one (8.33%) was between
the ages of 20-30, and the final participant (8.33%) was 71 and above.
Two of the participants had achieved a master’s degree, four had a
bachelor’s degree, three had received an associate’s degree, and the remaining
three received vocational training. Of the 12 participants, 9 of them were not
employed or stay at home parents; 2 were full time employees while one had parttime employment. As mentioned before, the participants were from both county
contracted homes and foster family agency homes. Eight (66.67%) of the homes
were contracted through a county; the remaining four (33.33%) homes were
contracted through a foster family agency.
Survey Questions 1-9
Question #1
The first survey question that this study sought to explore was: How long
have you been a foster parent? This question was included to gauge where the
resource parents’ mindsets are regarding the training they have received thus far as
well as understanding the roles they hold as substitute care providers. The amount
of time that they have been in the foster care system and the experiences that
impacts their view of themselves can be seen in the extent of time they have been
23
fostering. This study sought to explore the self-concept formation of resource
parents towards their foster care experience. This is meant to identify the
importance of resource parents with the CSEC vulnerable youth. The length of
time affects this view and the outcomes of stability in placement. Some themes
that were evident through this exploratory study included their self-concept
formation that encompassed stereotypes of foster youth, their identification with
their foster care experiences, and the level of awareness of the vulnerability that
the youth may experience.
The veteran resource parent participant had been involved in fostering
youth for 28 years. The responses provided by this participant were telling of the
individual’s experience with foster youth. This participant responded: “I see
children that need a home, and be treated as children should be treated.”
There were four participants that had fostered for ten years, the remainder
of the participants had fostered between 8 months to 4 years. The following is the
overall themed response from various participants was to provide stability: “To
give back to children in need.”
Question #2
The second survey question that this study sought to explore was: Do you
have biological children in your home? If so, what are their ages? These questions
were meant to address how many resource parents were likely to take foster
children vulnerable to CSEC into their home with their own biological children in
placement. It is important to understand that children who have been victimized or
are targeted for this form of abuse, may be more successful if placed with no other
children in the home. This question was meant to see the link between available
placements when biological children are in the home.
24
The resource parents were asked if they had biological children in the
home, 6 of the 12 participants responded ‘yes’ (50.00%); these participants had
young children between the ages of 4 and 13 years of age currently living in the
home. The remaining 50.00% responded with: “not currently as children are of
adult age,” “no,” or “could not have children.”
Question #3
All 12 participants in this study were asked their initial reason for becoming
a resource parent. This question was asked to serve as a reminder of what the
individuals had signed up for when first planning on getting placement of children
in their homes. The following themes of motivation to adopt, to provide a loving
faith-based home, and to give back to the community was gathered based on the
answers submitted by the resource parents.
Many of the respondents to the survey felt a calling from a higher power.
For example, Participant 1 stated: “I felt it was a calling from God and I felt the
need to help children by providing a safe and loving home.” Participant 4 relayed
the following and credited their spiritual beliefs:
My husband and I want to adopt a child one day. We prayed about it and
decided being foster parents would be even better. We can make a
difference in a child's life and give them a place to call home. It is a very
satisfying feeling.
At times, the families have a better understanding of the needs of a foster
child and therefore, follow the overall mission of foster care and the child welfare
system. As Participant 2 reported:
I became a foster care provider to help those that need a temporary home
until they can reunify with their loved ones. We had the available room and
25
understand that there was a shortage of foster homes, so we thought we can
make a small difference in helping someone.
Participant 3 stated in the response, “I was adopted to be able to help
another child/children in need is an awesome experience. You see them grow,
learn, and some experience things they may had never had the opportunity to do.”
Others are fostering children in their care for the goal of adopting a child
from the system. The participants observed the rules of the child welfare system
due to the motivation to adopt. Such was the experience of Participant 5: “My
Husband and I began as adoptive parents to start off the adoption process before
adopting.” This participant shared that the children currently in their home have
been the only children in their care.
Participant 8 also made the step towards foster parenting and will be
reaching their goal of adoption this summer: “Ultimate goal is to adopt, we are a
risk adopt home, and we will be finalizing our adoption of our daughter in July :).”
Participant 11 made it clear in the response that being a resource parent was
not the main attraction; however, adoption was the determining factor: “We began
as adoptive parents and had to foster for that 1st year.”
Question #4
The fourth survey question that this exploratory study investigated was:
What is your understanding of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
(CSEC)? It is important to gain an understanding of the roles that resource
families hold regarding foster youth. This question was included to find a
relationship between the resource parent’s view of CSEC and their willingness to
receive more in-depth training regarding CSEC vulnerabilities. Largely the
knowledge being considered through the information gathered is to find the
26
possibility of creating a specialized resource parent unit to house the CSEC
victims. The following are themes gathered based on the answers submitted by the
resource parents.
There were few participants that understood the general idea that CSEC
entails, such as Participant 2 who stated the following:
Children that are being sold in the black marketing as sex slaves. It is the
new type of slavery. These bad people look for children and young teens
that they can manipulate and train to become their sex slaves. In Fresno, it
has become a big problem.
Participant 11 reported the following as their understanding: It exists and is
happening as each day goes by. It's a crime, and children are exploited all
around the world daily. It involves the sex trade and generates money for
those involved. Children are violated and forced to do things they don't
want to, often drugged and enslaved.
Participant 12 spoke about the grooming aspect of CSEC, “I understand
that children are coerced into it as a way to make money but are then made to take
part in prostitution because they "owe" the pimp. They [pimps] recruit and groom
young children.”
On the other hand, the participants that had heard information about CSEC
and Human Trafficking responded in a way that dictated that the severity was
unknown. The following were responses by participants:
Participant 9 stated that their understanding was, “Just what you see on the
news.” Participant 8 reports, “Fresno is on the rise for trafficking.” Lastly,
Participant 7 relayed, “I heard it has happened in Fresno areas.”
As a final point, the participant who is the veteran resource parent had a
different reaction to what their awareness of CSEC, Participant 10 stated: “If
27
children grow up like I was, they would have a job, and that would keep there
mind off sex.”
Question #5
This section will describe the resource parents’ understanding of a 7-day
notice. [Clarification of a 7-day notice, as per the California Department of Social
Services website (Passavant, n.d.), to accomplish a change in placement, you will
need to give the social worker a seven (7) day notice that you want the child
removed, unless there are special circumstances that would require immediate
removal.] It is important to gain an understanding of the resource parents’
knowledge of what a 7-day notice is. This right, is held by the resource family and
directly affects the foster youth in their care. This research question will seek to
find a relationship between the resource parent’s view of a 7-day notice and their
willingness to keep and stabilize a child who is vulnerable to being targeted for
CSEC purposes.
The following are themes gathered based on the answers submitted by the
resource parents: foster parent rights, unable or unwilling to meet the child’s
needs, and not a good fit. Some of the participants responded that they were
unclear of the purpose of a 7-day notice, such as Participant 5: “not clear of what
a seven day notice is.” This participant later informed this researcher that this was
something that this concept was foreign to her as the children who had been placed
with her, had been with the family off and on for 3 years.
Participant 8 stated the following: “Eviction process of month to month
tenancy.” This participant had been fostering for a little over eight months and had
not had any issues with the child placed in the home.
28
The remainder of the participants responded similarly to Participant 12:
“Foster parents have the right to place a 7day notice on a foster child living in their
home. The county has 7 days to remove the child from the home.”
In this response, the individual commented that the county has the
responsibility to also inform them as the resource parent, of the removal of the
child from their home. This is important to note as parents will become close with
the child and they also require some time for termination.
Questions #6, #7, and #8
The sixth and seventh survey questions that this exploratory study
investigated was: Have you given a 7-day notice for a child(ren) in your care? If
so, why? The eighth question: If you had been provided additional resources,
education, or support, would you have reconsidered giving a 7-day notice? This
question sought to determine if more supports would have made a difference for a
child in their care. These questions were found to be of importance to gain an
understanding about the reasons resource families are unable to care for children
and youth in their homes. This survey question aimed to find if there was a
relationship between the resource parent’s view of the 7-day notice and their
willingness to continue placement of the child(ren) in care.
Of the 12 participants, 5 responded ‘Yes’ (58.33%) and 7 responded ‘no’
(41.67%) to having given a 7-day notice to a child in their home. Participants
responded with the following reasons as to why the notice was provided to the
child welfare system:
Participant 3, “...because the child would [not] follow any rules.” When
given the opportunity for additional supports, the participant responded: “Yes, I
would think before I take the child.” The participant chose to inform the
29
researcher, “I would choose to get training but that would not make a difference if
the child isn’t wanting to follow my house rules.”
Participant 4 stated that the child in his home was removed from a teenage
mother; the following was this individual’s response, “the child’s teenage mother
wanted to throw around sexual accusations on the first day. So I removed myself
from the situation, Mother was later 5150'd.” When provided with the opportunity
to take additional supports, the participant stated, “No, it had nothing to do with
the child.”
Participant 9 provided an insight to placement of a child with behaviors
unknown to her. Despite having been provided with this child’s behaviors ahead
of time, the child began displaying behaviors after placement. The resource parent
felt it necessary to have the child removed from the home as these behaviors were
placing other children in the home at risk. Participant 9 submitted the following
information regarding the decision for a 7-day notice:
Sexually abused other children in my home. Child needed medication for
ADD and ADHD and was not given any. Child was caught several times
stealing from my home and tried to lure a much younger child in her room
and close the door.
This individual informed this researcher had there been additional support
or training offered in regard to children with these types of behaviors at the time,
they would have made a different decision, “Yes on a couple of the children.”
Finally, participant 11 provided a different outlook of a 7-day notice, the
child in this participant’s home was of adolescent age and continuously ran away.
This was the response provided:
“The child ran away and never returned so I put a seven day notice so I can
have another child live in the home.” This participant informed this researcher that
30
there was an amount of time allotted to the child’s return but the county workers
had called and informed this resource parent of a child seeking a home, therefore
the decision to place a 7-day notice was in order to house another child in need of
placement. When asked if the resource parent would reconsider if provided with
additional resources, education or support, the participant responded, “of course,
the more education and support will enable me to do what is necessary to help the
foster children.”
Question #9
Participants were asked to self-rate their understanding, level of awareness,
and likelihood or taking a child with behaviors listed. The behaviors provided in
the Likert scale of the survey are as follows: leaves home frequently without
authorization and for significant periods of time, uses street slang for sex work,
has significantly older partner, lies about age and carries fake form of
identification, indications of domestic violence/partner violence, reluctant to
discuss how they have access to money, has old or new injuries without real
explanations, exhibits overt sexualized behaviors, has suspicious tattoos or burn
marks, has had multiple sexually transmitted infections and/or abortions, and
shows minimal interest in school or does not attend. To find how to best support
the limited amount of resource parents that counties currently have, it is important
to know what the parents know about CSEC and how willing they are to provide a
stable home and placement for these youths who will exhibit challenging
behaviors (see Table 1).
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take placement of
children who exhibit different behaviors that the resource family may be unable or
able to tolerate. Table 1 represents responses from the resource families who
Table 1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
Extremely
Likely
0
0
8.33
8.33
8.33
0
8.33
8.33
0
0
%
0
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
1
2
25.00
25.00
25.00
16.67
25.00
25.00
33.33
25.00
16.67
8.33
%
16.67
6
4
6
3
5
3
2
3
0
1
3
50.00
33.33
50.00
25.00
41.67
25.00
16.67
25.00
0
8.33
%
25.00
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
1
5
3
3
0
8.33
0
16.67
0
16.67
8.33
8.33
41.67
25.00
%
25.00
2
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
5
7
4
Extremely
Unlikely
16.67
33.33
16.67
33.33
25.00
33.33
33.33
33.33
41.67
58.33
33.33
%
Somewhat
Unlikely
0
8.33
Neither
likely nor
Unlikely
1
Somewhat
Likely
Perceptions of Resource Parents
Behaviors
Leaves
home
Uses street
Slang for
Sex Work
Has Older
Partner
Lies about
Age
DV &
Partner
Violence
Reluctant to
Discuss
Access to
Money
Has old/new
injuries
Overt
Sexual
Behaviors
Suspicious
tattoos/bur
ns
STIs/Aborti
ons
Minimal
interest in
school
31
32
participated. The data indicated that most families would be unwilling to take
placement of children who exhibit behaviors that CSEC victims would
demonstrate due to their trauma.
The children who are being groomed into forced prostitution are lured in
with promises of love and protection. The traffickers will request the victims to be
by their side in a moment’s notice; due to the belief of love or possibly fear, felt
towards their trafficker, the victim will leave without authorization from any
location.
Participants responded that they would be unwilling to take placement of a
child who uses street slang for sex work. Many of the participants who responded,
‘extremely or somewhat unlikely’ had minor biological children in the home. One
of the participants stated, “As my adoptive children become older I would
probably wait until they have gone to school and then begin to accept children
with these behaviors.”
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take a child, who
has a significantly older partner and their overall response was ‘somewhat and
extremely unlikely.’ Victims of commercial sexual exploitation will usually have
an older individual grooming and luring them into becoming a modern-day slave.
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take a child, who
lies about age and carries a fake form of identification. The majority of the
participants responded ‘extremely unlikely' to take placement of a child with this
behavior. Usually, due to the child’s age, the traffickers will force the victim to
learn a new name to fit into the new areas they are moved to. The trafficker will
create a story about who they are to manipulate the victim. The trafficker will
provide the child with a whole new identification.
33
In terms of the resource parents’ willingness to take a child who shows
indications of domestic violence/partner violence, participants responded to this
behavior as a split decision between ‘somewhat likely’ and ‘extremely unlikely.'
Once a youth has been recruited into forced prostitution, the child is at risk of
experiencing repeat partner violence. The child has become a target for intimate
partner violence at the hands of the trafficker, facilitators in the trafficking trade,
and the buyers. The individuals use these forms of abuse to establish and maintain
control of the victim.
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take a child who is
reluctant to discuss how they have access to money. Children who are targets for
human trafficking and CSEC will be recruited with promises of love, money,
attention, acceptance, jobs such as acting or modeling opportunities, drugs or other
material desirable items. The child will suddenly have new clothing items, cell
phone, or other materials that will be given to them by the person luring them into
this modern slavery lifestyle. The child victim may not realize they are being
primed for commercial sex. Instead they feel wanted and loved.
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take placement of a
child who has old or new injuries without real explanations. Participants were
neutral in their evaluation to take a child with this behavior. As mentioned
previously regarding the intimate partner violence, the psychological manipulation
used to lure and groom these young children into forced prostitution is so strong,
they will have not expect to be hurt by their “boyfriend.” Once the victim has been
completely lured, manipulated and controlled, they will be at a higher risk to
suffer injuries from the physical abuse they are put through. The child will have
bruises or marks at various stages of healing.
34
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take a child who
exhibits overt sexualized behaviors. This is a common behavior for children who
have been sexually abused and as mentioned prior, forced prostitution and other
forced sexual acts would fall under the same umbrella. Most the participants
responded, ‘extremely unlikely’ to take a child with overt sexualized behaviors.
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take a child who has
suspicious tattoos or burn marks into their home, and half of the respondents
replied, ‘neither likely nor unlikely.’ The remainder of the family resource parents
responses, were on either side of the scale. When a child suspected victim of
CSEC, has a new tattoo, the child has been branded by their pimp or trafficker.
The child is now considered that individuals’ property due to the branding placed
on their skin. If the child is sold to another individual, the child will receive a new
tattoo or mark to show that individuals name, mark, or brand.
Placement of a child, who has had multiple sexually transmitted infections
and/or abortions, was deemed ‘neither likely nor unlikely’ and ‘extremely
unlikely.’ Children are most likely to be identified as CSEC victims in a medical
setting as the victims will seek care for routine testing for sexually transmitted
infections, contraceptive care, and general health care. Others may not be able to
seek health care as they do not have access or only seek when the condition is
severe.
Participants were asked to self-rate their willingness to take a child who
shows minimal interest in school or does not attend. Lack of engagement in school
or participation in attendance is a large disguise created by our youth. The youth
may be unwilling to attend due to shame and guilt. The youth may be threatened
by the trafficker not to attend as they lose money for their time. Participants were
neutral in their evaluation to take a child with this behavior
35
Summary
This chapter provided an insight into the perceptions of 12 resource parents
who are on the front lines of caring for our foster children in the child welfare
system. The resource parents shared their experiences as the individuals who have
placement of children and deal with the challenging behaviors on a daily basis.
The resource parents care for children from birth to teen/young adults and their
experiences as the primary care givers provide valuable knowledge about how to
better support the children and youth. In addition, the expectations and norms of
the resource parents depend on the length of time that the individual has fostered
children. The participants also described their perceptions of what they are willing
to tolerate regarding behaviors of children in their home. Despite the challenges
that the resource parents face due to the trauma and behaviors that the youth may
exhibit, the resource parents in this study would not stop fostering children in
need. The following chapter will include major findings, limitations, implications
for social work practice, and recommendations for future research.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
In this chapter, the researcher will provide a summary of the results and
discuss implications for social work practice. The researcher will also examine and
analyze the data found on the participants’ level of awareness and knowledge
about CSEC and barriers in providing stable housing to the vulnerable population.
Lastly, the researcher will discuss limitations, recommendations, and the
implications of the results for future research at a micro, mezzo, and macro level.
Discussion of Findings
This mixed-methods study was designed to gain an understanding from the
resource parent’s perspective of Commercially Sexually Exploited Children
(CSEC). The Foster Family Training Program resource parents and other foster
family agency homes were the participants who reported their perception of
human trafficking and CSEC. The findings of this mixed-method study described
the resources parents’ awareness of CSEC. Seven topics were discussed during the
surveys distribution: (a) interest in being a resource parent, (b) personal gains in
regard to fostering children, (c) adopting children from Child Welfare Services,
(d) understanding of CSEC, (e) understanding of a 7-day notice, (f) other children
in the home, and (g) barriers due to characteristics of keeping a CSEC identified
youth safe in placement. This study showcased the lived experiences of the
resource parents who come into contact and can impact a child who is vulnerable
to Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC).
This study was inimitable because it is an exploratory study to determine if
there is a possibility of creating a specialized resource parents’ unit to house
individuals who are at risk or have been determined victims of CSEC. The
participants in this study were resource parents and have combined knowledge that
37
ranges from 8 months to 28 years. The statistical data from the resource parent
awareness of CSEC survey supported the researcher’s overall perceptions of
additional training needed to support families in placement of children who are the
most vulnerable population to CSEC and other forms of human trafficking.
Several associations were among the findings of this present study, the guiding
theoretical frameworks for this study, and the empirical research that was used to
examine the impacts of training required to create stability in placement of youth
as well as the creation of a specialized resource parent home for CSEC youth.
Implications for Social Work Practice
Resource parents have the vital role in providing stable placement to at risk
and child victims of commercial sexual exploitation. It is crucial for agencies in
child welfare to develop training in identifying and providing stable permanent
placement for victims. The participation and collaboration between child welfare
services and resource parents is paramount to the permanency of children who are
susceptible to exposure to CSEC. California has passed several bills that have
been enacted for the protection of victims and prosecution of human traffickers.
Unfortunately, some participants of this study were unclear about what CSEC
entails despite the growing awareness of human trafficking. This is a major barrier
for social workers when attempting to find placement for children who exhibit
characteristics that many resource families are unwilling to tolerate. As Cecka
(2015) stated, “the overwhelming majority of youth engaged in CSEC activity
have run away or been kicked out of their homes or foster care placements” (p.
1239). Many cases of sexual exploitation of children are not reported. This study
revealed that resource parents would be unlikely to take children who exhibit
‘normal’ behaviors that CSEC victims will demonstrate.
38
Until recently agencies did not collect information about sexual offenses
especially of those that exhibit CSEC characteristics or markers. The youth that
ran away from placements or were no longer accepted in their foster home were
seen more as a “teenage” act or behavior rather than markers for human trafficking
grooming or luring.
Findings Relevance to Theoretical Frameworks
and Empirical Literature
The empirical literature indicates that children involved in human
trafficking often display characteristics of homelessness or have a history of
sexual and emotional abuse. Many youths may run away or have some
involvement in the foster care system. These youths are at highest risk for
victimization or exploitation. As described in Chapter 1, the lack of awareness and
training among resource parents will create instability of placement. The resource
parents seem to be more focused on the behaviors rather than the trauma that the
children have experienced. This lack of knowledge and awareness jeopardizes
how a victim will be assisted.
Initiatives were developed across the United States to create specialized
task forces to address the growing number of children victimized by domestic sex
trafficking (Fong & Berger Cardoso, 2010). Child welfare agencies have begun to
develop specific policies on the screening of victims of trafficking that have
experienced a form of sexual exploitation. Due to this screening being
implemented, CWS has needed to divulge information regarding behaviors
exhibited by youth to resource parents. As seen in the research, the resource
parents who responded to this survey were unwilling to take children who exhibit
behaviors that CSEC victims will often demonstrate. Participants also mentioned
they would not take placement of CSEC identified youth, if there are other
39
children in the home. The ages of the biological children in their homes were
between the ages of 4 to 13 years.
Although there are current policies to develop screening for sexually
exploited youth, the communities themselves may not have access to specified
services. Currently, Molly’s House, Breaking the Chains, Fresno Economic
Opportunities Commission of Sanctuary Youth Services, and OLIVE Foundation
are the few youth facilities specifically focused on victims of human trafficking in
the Central Valley.
Recommendations for Policy
Due to the challenges faced by child welfare agencies in response to CSEC,
the need for a collaborative approach with resource parents is necessary. It is
crucial for those involved with children in foster care to collaborate and to
evaluate policies related to CSEC and the children in the child welfare system. In
addition, the lack of data regarding the reality and the severity of CSEC must be
addressed. The development of a system that measures and documents specific
cases of commercial sexual exploitation among child welfare agencies is
encouraged. It is important to introduce trainings to the resource parents that focus
on prevention and identification of CSEC specialized and directly related to foster
youth. Finally, the development of specialized services in child welfare that are
uniquely applicable and effective for the trauma of victims who have experienced
sexual exploitation is warranted and should be created in the placement of the
youth. These services should include cultural and political consciousness of
marginalized populations, undocumented persons, and LGBTQ youth who are
regularly not considered.
40
Limitations of the Study
The study is limited by the small sample size of 12 resource parents from
both county and foster family agency homes. The sample size consisted of 10
female and 2 male participants. The significant disproportionality of males and
females may influence responses. The researcher must take into account the
possible impact of the few males in this study. In addition, the findings gathered
may not provide an accurate representation of the perspectives of resource parent
families. The researcher must also consider that some individuals were able to
complete the survey online but due to a small number of participants, individuals
were given the surveys in person. Although the surveys were anonymous, the fact
that the survey was distributed in the agency might have influenced participants to
not be truthful in their responses.
Lastly, the researcher reworded instruments from a pre-existing instrument
to generate a mixed-method study focused on the awareness of the commercial
sexual exploitation of children from the resource parent’s perspective. The metric
qualities of the instrument for reliability and validity are unknown. Few
instruments are available for assessing knowledge, awareness, and barriers of
resource parents on the commercial sexual exploitation in a focused study.
Recommendations for Future Research
This research study explored the present knowledge and awareness of
resource parents about the commercial sexual exploitation of children and their
perceptions of barriers to the creation of permanency for victims. The literature
that is offered about CSEC and Human Trafficking is extremely limited. Due to
the limited research within this field, it is critical for child welfare agencies to
provide specialized training to the resource parents about CSEC. Specifically
focused on how to offer the children protection, what propensities are displayed as
41
‘behaviors,’ as well as the ability for resource parents to make a real difference in
the lives of these exploited children. This information would be strengthened if
traffickers and pimps would be interviewed to develop a better understanding of
the recruitment process.
Conclusion
The supply and demand of commercial sexual exploitation of children has
created a global epidemic. Resource parents have a vital role in protecting and
providing a stable environment to at-risk or identified victims of commercial
sexual exploitation. It is important for resource parents to understand the effects of
CSEC. Resource parents must use their position in the lives of the children to
advocate for their needs and to develop stability in placement. The world without
commercial sexual exploitation is conceivable through changes driven byfamily
resource parents advocating for education, resources and additional support to
create stability for our vulnerable youth.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Betz, C. (2012). The tragedy and horror of human trafficking of children and
youth. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 27(5), 433-434.
Cecka, D. M. (2015). The civil rights of sexually exploited youth in foster care.
University of Richmond Law Faculty Publication. Retrieved from
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2078&context=l
aw-faculty-publications.
Cole, S. A. (2005). Foster caregiver motivation and infant attachment: How do
reasons for fostering affect relationships?. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 22(5-6), 441-457.
Cole, J., Sprang, G., Lee, R., & Cohen, J. (2016). The trauma of commercial
sexual exploitation of youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(1), 122146.
Cooley, M. E., & Petren, R. E. (2011). Foster parent perceptions of competency:
implications for foster parent training. Children and Youth Services Review,
33(10), 1968-1974.
Dank, M. (2011). The commercial exploitation of children. El Paso, TX: LFB
Scholarly.
Expert Group on Strategies for Combating Trafficking of Women, & Children.
(2003). Report of the expert group on strategies for combating trafficking of
women and children: Best Practice. Commonwealth Secretariat.
Federal Bureau of Investigations (2009). Efforts to combat crimes against
children, Audit Report 09-08.
Fong, R., & Berger Cardoso, J. (2010). Child human trafficking victims:
Challenges for the child welfare system. Evaluation and Program Planning,
33(3), 311-316.
Havlicek, J., Huston, S., Boughton, S., & Zhang, S. (2016). Human trafficking of
children in illinois: Prevalence and characteristics. Children and Youth
Services Review, 69, 127-135.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence against
women. Population Reports, 27(4), 1-43.
44
Hepburn, S., & Simon, R. (2010). Hidden in plain sight: Human trafficking in the
united states. Gender Issues, 27(1), 1-26.
Kurst-Swanger, K., & Petcosky, J. (2003). Violence in the home: Multidisciplinary
Perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Logan, T., Walker, R., Hunt, G. (2009). Understanding human trafficking in the
united states. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(1), 3-30.
Jackson, S., & Jones, J. (1998). Contemporary feminist theories. Edinburgh,
Britain: Edinburgh University.
Lamichhane, P., Puri, M., Tamang, J., & Dulal, B. (2011). Women's status and
violence against young married women in rural nepal. BMC Women's Health,
11, 19-27.
Loue, S., & Sajatovic, M. (2012). Encyclopedia of immigrant health. Springer
Science & Business Media. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Jose_Tellez-Zenteno/publication/233427189_Epilepsy_Encyclopedia
_of_Immigrant_Health/links/09e4150a9a5305ce28000000.pdf
National Human Trafficking Resource Center. (2014). Human trafficking.
Retrieved from http://www.traffickingresourcecenter.org/what-humantrafficking/human-trafficking/victims
Pauli, C. (2014). Meredith L. Dank: The commercial sexual exploitation of
children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1949-1951.
Passavant, W. (n.d.). Caregiver FAQs. California Department of Social Services.
Retrieved from http://www.fosterfamilyhelp.ca.gov/PG3062.htm
Reid, J. (2013). Rapid assessment exploring impediments to successful
prosecutions of sex traffickers of u.s. minors. Journal of Police and Criminal
Psychology, 28(1), 75-89.
Rhodes, K., Cox, M., Orme, J., & Coakley, T. (2006). Foster parents’ reasons for
fostering and foster family utilization. Journal of Sociology & Social
Welfare, 33(4), 105.
Roe-Sepowitz, D., Gallagher, J., Risinger, M., & Hickle, K. (2015). The sexual
exploitation of girls in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence
30(16), 2814-2830.
45
Stewart, E., Schreck, C., & Simons, R. (2006). “I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect
me”: Does the code of the street reduce or increase violence victimization
among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 43(4), 427.
United States Department of Justice. (n.d.). Child exploitation of obscenity section.
Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/subjectareas/
prostitution.html
United States New York Office of Children and Family Services. (n.d.). Red flags
of CSEC and child trafficking. International Organization for Adolescents.
New York Child Rights. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs/
pdf/child_welfare/ct/2016/RedFlagsofCSECCT.
Varma, S., Gillespie, S., McCracken, C., & Greenbaum, V. J. (2015).
Characteristics of child commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking
victims presenting for medical care in the united states. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 44, 98-105.
Zuravin, S., & DePanfilis, D. (1997). Factors affecting foster care placement of
children receiving child protective services. Social Work Research, 21(1), 3442.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: COVER LETTER TO SPECIALIZED FOSTER
PARENT TRAINING PROGRAM AND
RESOURCE PARENTS
48
Dear Colleague,
You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Maria Aguilar,
graduate student from the Department of Social Work at Fresno State, and
principal investigator supervising this study, Dr. Jane Middleton. The survey is to
assess the level of awareness and knowledge you have about commercially
sexually exploited children (CSEC). You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because you are a foster parent to children who are vulnerable to CSEC.
The expected benefits associated with your participation in this study are: 1) your
feedback will help increase current knowledge on commercially sexually exploited
children within the foster parent community, 2) your feedback will help identify
current barriers in housing commercially sexually exploited children, 3) your
feedback will help the possible creation of specialized foster parent homes to
victims of CSEC.
If you decide to participate, you will be able to complete this one-time
survey online via Qualtrics. It will include open- ended and close-ended questions.
Reponses on this survey do not require names or other information that will
identify your person or children in your care. Your responses will be completely
anonymous. Dr. Middleton and I will only have access to the completed surveys.
The survey will be kept online as well as printed and kept in a secured file cabinet
once it has been received. All information collected will be destroyed after the
completion of this study. The first 10-12 participants will receive a $5 gift card to
Starbucks as well as a restaurant gift certificate as a small token of compensation.
The raffle items will be given two weeks after the completion of the study.
Participation in this study is completely voluntarily. The director is aware
of this study. Resource parents are not mandated to participate. Your decision to
not participate does not influence your status with your respective county. If you
49
decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue
participation at any time without penalty. The committee on the Protection of
Human Subjects at California State University, Fresno has reviewed and approved
the present research.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
[email protected]. If you have any additional questions, feel free to
contact Dr. Middleton at (559)278-3992. Questions regarding the rights of
research subjects may be directed to Constance Jones, Chair, CSUF Committee on
the Protection of Human Subjects, (559)278-4468. You may email me if you
would like to be provided with a summary of the findings.
Sincerely,
Maria Aguilar
APPENDIX B: RESOURCE PARENT SURVEY:
AWARENESS OF CSEC
51
You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Maria Aguilar, graduate student
from the Department of Social Work at Fresno State, and principal investigator
supervising this study, Dr. Jane Middleton. The survey is to assess the level of awareness
and knowledge you have about commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC). You
were selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a foster parent to
children who are vulnerable to CSEC. The expected benefits associated with your
participation in this study are: 1) your feedback will help increase current knowledge on
commercially sexually exploited children within the foster parent community, 2) your
feedback will help identify current barriers in housing commercially sexually exploited
children, 3) your feedback will help the possible creation of specialized foster parent
homes to victims of CSEC. If you decide to participate, you will be able to complete this
one-time survey online via Qualtrics. It will include open-ended and close-ended
questions.
Reponses on this survey do not require names nor other information that will identify
your person or children in your care. Your responses will be completely anonymous. Dr.
Middleton and I will only have access to the completed surveys. The survey will be kept
online as well as printed and kept in a secured file cabinet once it has been received. All
information collected will be destroyed after the completion of this study. The first 10
participants will be entered to win a $5 gift card to Starbucks as well as a gift certificate
to a restaurant as a small token of compensation. The gift card/certificate will be given
two weeks after the completion of the study. Participation in this study is completely
voluntarily. The director is aware of this study. Foster care providers are not mandated to
participate. Your decision to not participate does not influence your status with your
respective county. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and
discontinue participation at any time without penalty. The committee on the Protection of
Human Subjects at California State University, Fresno has reviewed and approved the
present research. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
[email protected]. If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact
Dr. Middleton at (559)278-3992. Questions regarding the rights of research subjects may
be directed to Kris Clarke, Ph.D, Chair, CSUF Committee on the Protection of Human
Subjects. You may email me if you would like to be provided with a summary of the
findings.
YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE.
SELECTING 'I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE' BELOW INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE
DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE, HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED
ABOVE.
I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE
I DO NOT AGREE TO PARTICIPATE
Condition: I DO NOT AGREE TO PARTICIPATE Is Selected. Skip To: End of Survey.
52
Resource Parent Awareness of
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
Q1 Gender
Male
Female
Identify as Other not Specified
Q2 Marital Status
Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Separated
Domestic Partnership
Q3 Age
20 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 and above
Q4 Educational Level
Middle School - High School
Vocational School
Associates Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Doctorate Degree
Q5 Employment Status
Not Employed / Stay at Home Parent
Part-Time Employment
Full-Time Employment
Q6 Are you a:
Foster Family Agency home
County Home
53
Q7 How long have you been a resource family/foster parent (years/months)?
Q8 Do you have your biological children in the home? Please state how many children
and ages.
Q9 What was your initial reason for becoming a foster care provider? Please be as
detailed as possible.
Q10 What is your understanding of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
(CSEC)?
54
Q11 What is your understanding of a 7-day notice?
Q12 Have you given a 7-day notice for a child(ren) in your care?
Yes
No
Display This Question:
If Have you given a 7-day notice for a child(ren) in your care? Yes Is Selected
Q13 Why did you give notice on the child(ren)? Please give examples.
Q14 If you had been provided additional resources, education, or support, would you
have reconsidered giving a 7-day notice?
55
Q15 How likely are you to take a child in your care with the following characteristics?
Extremely
likely
Leaves home
frequently
without
authorization
and for
significant
periods of time
Uses street slang
for sex work
Has significantly
older partner
Lies about age
and carries fake
form of
identification
Indications of
Domestic
Violence/Partner
Violence
Reluctant to
discuss how
they have access
to money
Has old or new
injuries without
real explanations
Exhibits overt
sexualized
behavior
Has suspicious
tattoos or burn
marks
Has had
multiple
sexually
transmitted
infections and/or
abortions
Shows minimal
interest in
school or does
not attend
Somewhat
likely
Neither likely
nor unlikely
Somewhat
unlikely
Extremely
unlikely
APPENDIX C: LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM FRESNO STATE
FOSTER PARENT TRAINING PROGRAM
57
APPENDIX D: HUMAN SUBJECTS CERTIFICATE
OF COMPLETION
59
Certificate of Completion
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certifies that
Maria Aguilar successfully completed the NIH Web-based training course
"Protecting Human Research Participants".
Date of completion: 01/20/2016.
Certification Number: 1959396.