Child Welfare Workers’ Experiences of Screening for Human Trafficking Victimization
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MARCH 17, 2022 Lead Researcher: Lisa Magruder, Ph.D., MSW, Florida Institute for Child Welfare Principal Investigator: Jessica Pryce, Ph.D., MSW, Florida Institute for Child Welfare Florida Institute for Child Welfare Research Assistants: Bushra Rashid, MSW Keishann Corley, MPA ficw.fsu.edu
Learn More: ficw.fsu.edu/htst
Introduction In collaboration with the Department of Children and Families (DCF), the Florida Institute for Child Welfare began working in 2017 to validate the DCF Human Trafficking Screening Tool (HTST, Tool). In 2019, the Institute began conducting psychometric testing with the HTST using a non-random sample of 248 completed assessments from disparate areas of Florida. Ultimately, the Tool was unable to be validated due to lack of reliability. The Institute suggested that with additional screener training, subsequent data collection, and new analyses, validation is possible. This phase of collaboration included qualitative interviews and focus group data which explored the screeners’ interpretation and implementation of the Tool to inform recommendations for DCF.
Background
HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN FLORIDA Considered a form of modern-day slavery,1 federal and Florida law defines human trafficking as “the transporting, soliciting, recruiting, harboring, providing, or obtaining of another person for transport; for the purposes of forced labor, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation using force, fraud and/or coercion.”2 Scholars report that the number of human trafficking victims is underreported due to under-identification of trafficking victims.3 The 2020 National Human Trafficking Hotline (NHTH) data shows 10,583 total cases of reported human trafficking.4 Florida is identified as having the third highest number of human trafficking cases reported to the NHTH, with 738 cases.4,5 According to DCF during the 2020-2021 period, the Florida Abuse Hotline received 2,289 reports of human trafficking allegations, of which approximately one-quarter were deemed verified as trafficking.6 To address the needs of these vulnerable youth, the Florida Legislature enacted the Safe Harbor Act of 2012,7 to encourage the expansion of resources available to sexually exploited youth, including short-term safe housing availability and use. In 2014, the Act was expanded to require that DCF and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) develop a set of instruments to better
identify, assess, and place human trafficking victims. Thus, in 2015 the HTST tool was piloted, and implementation occurred in 2016. In 2016, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) expressed concern that the HTST was not being used as intended and recommended DCF evaluate the Tool.8 This is when the Institute became involved to assess and conduct an evaluation of the implementation of the HTST by frontline workers involved in casework of suspected or verified human trafficking cases.
Methodology
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS Using a list provided by DCF, 436 screeners were invited to participate, with 26 ultimately completing an interview (15 CPIs, 8 senior CPIs, and three in other roles). Participants work in disparate regions of Florida including Central (n = 15), Southeast (n = 4), Suncoast (n = 4), and Northeast (n = 3). There were no participants from the Southern or Northwest regions. Additional demographics were not collected as part of the study. Using a semi-structured interview guide, the interviewer asked participants about their experiences as a screener. Participants consented to audio-recording of the interview and upon completion of the interview, received a $25 Amazon.com gift card incentive. All interviews were professionally transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.9,10,11 FOCUS GROUPS Using the same list of DCF screeners provided in the region, 430 individuals (excluding 6 undeliverable emails) were emailed to participate in a focus group within their region. Focus group participants represented five regions: Central (n = 3), Northeast (n = 3), Southeast (n = 2), Southern (n = 1), and Suncoast (n = 1). The Northwest region was not represented. Importantly, while these are referred to as “focus groups” in this report to capture their original structure and purpose, all groups had small sample sizes, and two are considered individual interviews. The author implemented cognitive interviewing, a qualitative technique that can provide in-depth information on if and how instruments provide the desired information.12 The technique asks a small group of individuals to provide information about survey items, as opposed to answering the items, to provide insight into the performance of those items. Going through the HTST, the author used a combination of think aloud and verbal probing. That is, they allowed participants to share their thoughts on the HTST items, but also asked them targeted questions based on the language of the Tool (e.g., “What does an ‘unsafe living environment’ mean to you?”). The researchers did not provide incentives for participation as focus groups were scheduled during participants’ typical work hours. All interviews were professionally transcribed then edited by a research assistant for clarity and confidentiality. Transcripts were analyzed using a similar analytic technique as described for the individual interviews.
Summary of Findings Overall, screeners were pleased with the training they received for the screener role, but there were some reports of feeling unprepared to use the HTST. Screeners identified that not regularly conducting screenings using the Tool can impact the ability to be conversational during interviews while still completing a comprehensive assessment. The time between screenings was identified as challenging to screener self-efficacy with the use of the Tool. Screeners expressed interest in screener-friendly data collection methods (e.g., “cheat sheets”) or additional skill-building experiences to increase self-efficacy. A vast majority of screeners reported that they use the Tool as a guide rather than a checklist. Though screeners acknowledge that their interactions with youth vary depending on the circumstances, they can utilize multiple rapport-building techniques to engage with the youth; however, they noted that these are not guaranteed to be successful. Focus group participants articulated that they regularly reword Tool items, or the flow of items, to not only make the screening more conversational but to make the youth feel more comfortable (e.g., starting with broad questions before narrowing to specific concerns). Screeners made suggestions for item revisions or additions, but no suggestions were consistent enough to warrant strong recommendations for changes to the Tool. Additionally, some Tool language was identified as potentially revictimizing for youth while some screeners felt areas to document contextual details were needed. Importantly, in phase two of the Institute’s HTST work, there were two “evidence of” indicators that did not well align with the factor structure of the scale: evidence of forced labor and evidence of
forced tattooing/branding. The present data illustrates this could be due to challenges with the sub-items for these indicators (e.g., too vague, not comprehensive enough). Discrepancy in screeners’ or youths’ understanding of particular items could lead to inaccurate data captured on Tools and could have influenced statistical findings in the prior report. Limitations to the current study include self-selection bias and small focus group sample size, both overall and within groups. The qualitative methodology requires acknowledgment that these results cannot be generalized to all screeners in Florida. Finally, given that data was collected in 2020, it is possible that there have been updates to the HTST and relevant processes, including training, that are not captured here. RECOMMENDATIONS The Institute recommends the Department of Children and Families: 1.
Develop a robust training catalogue to include additional content on how to administer the Tool
2.
Include text boxes for each major section to document contextual information
3.
Make the HTST an electronic tool
4.
Determine how to best assess risk among particularly vulnerable populations
5.
Consider the addition of items to provide context to the evidence of forced tattooing/branding subsection
6.
Consider rewording certain items or response items
Learn More: ficw.fsu.edu/htst
References 1
Florida Office of the Attorney General. (n.d.). What is human trafficking? Retrieved August 29, 2019 from http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/0108F1C73781B7F485257AC20074F49E
2
Florida Department of Children and Families [DCF]. (2019). Human trafficking. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from https://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/human-trafficking/
3
Hopper, E. K. (2004). Underidentification of human trafficking victims in the United States. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 5(2), 125-136
4
National Human Trafficking Hotline. (2020a). Hotline statistics. Retrieved February 22, 2022 from https://humantraffickinghotline.org/states
5
National Human Trafficking Hotline. (2020b). Florida. Retrieved February 22, 2022 from https://humantraffickinghotline.org/state/florida
6
Florida Department of Children and Families [DCF]. (2021). Human Trafficking of Children Annual Report. Retrieved February 22, 2022 from https://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/human-trafficking/publications.shtml
7
Fla. Stat. § 409.1678 (2012)
8
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2016). Placement challenges persist for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation; question regarding effective interventions and outcomes remain. Report No. 16-04. Tallahassee, Florida.
9
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
10 Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123. 11 Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. London: Sage 12 Boeije, H., & Willis, G. (2013). The Cognitive Interviewing Reporting Framework (CIRF): Toward the harmonization of cognitive testing reports. Methodology, 9(3), 87-95. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000075
Questions & Comments: FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Lisa Magruder, Ph.D., MSW
Program Director of Science & Research Florida Institute for Child Welfare lmagruder@fsu.edu
Jessica Pryce, Ph.D., MSW Director Florida Institute for Child Welfare jpryce@fsu.edu
Florida Institute for Child Welfare
2139 Maryland circle, Suite 1100, Tallahassee, FL 32303 FICW.FSU.EDU
850-644-7201
FICW@FSU.EDU
@FSUChildWelfare