Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.