Sex Trafficking of Minors and Safe Harbor in Kentucky
Jennifer Cole, PhD, MSW | September 22 | 3:15-4:15 pm
Topic: Research | Knowledge Level: Intermediate
There has been a growing push to pass state safe harbor laws to align governmental and community responses to the reframing of the issue of sex trafficking of minors (STM) that was ushered in with the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Kentucky enacted a safe harbor law, the Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act (HTVRA), in 2013, which mandated a comprehensive protective system response (Shared Hope International, 2015). A research study was conducted to examine the effect of legislative change on system responses to sex trafficking of minors. The research question was “What changes in systems’ processes for identifying and responding to STM have occurred since the enactment of the law?” First, change from pre-implementation to post-implementation of the safe harbor law in awareness, knowledge, and practices for responding to STM was examined in key informant surveys (n = 365). Second, state administrative data was analyzed to examine several policy outcomes related to the immunity, protective, and rehabilitative provisions of the law. Findings include the need for increased awareness and training and adoption of protocols, including screenings, in systems that work with at-risk youth has occurred in the post-implementation period. Child welfare’s mandated role to accept reports and to investigate alleged trafficking of children has centralized a formal response. However, the increased screening and reporting of trafficking of children has not resulted in a meaningful increase in criminal charges. Positive impacts and challenging obstacles in Kentucky’s responses to sex trafficking of minors will be discussed.
Presentation Objectives:
· Summarize and evaluate the impact of a safe harbor law, with particular attention to positive impacts and recommendations for improvements
· Describe the varied ways children are trafficked in commercial sex in metropolitan and non-metropolitan communities across one state
· Share methods for evaluating the impact of safe harbor laws, including the use of secondary data