Screening for Human Trafficking in Child Welfare: Lessons Learned from Florida Screeners

Background and Purpose: In Florida, which ranks third in the number of human trafficking (HT) cases reported to the National HT Hotline, some child welfare workers undergo specialized training to become designated HT screeners. In response to a call by the Florida Legislature, a collaborative team of researchers and state-level child welfare professionals developed items to assess screeners’ experiences. Using quantitative and qualitative data, this study explores the cases with which screeners engage, as well as the challenges faced in conducting screenings, in an effort to better inform HT screening practices within child welfare.

Methods: HT screening items were included in wave 5 (24-months post-baseline) of the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families, a longitudinal study of the child welfare workforce (N=1,501). Participants were recruited in their preservice trainings and receive surveys approximately every six months, regardless of their current employment status. The present analysis is confined to 48 Florida-based child welfare workers who have worked a HT case, are a designated screener, and have conducted a screening since February 1, 2016, when the latest version of Florida’s screening tool was implemented. We examined descriptive statistics regarding the number and types of HT cases worked as well as the prevalence of HT indicators received in referrals. We assessed screeners’ self-efficacy in conducting the screening with a three-item scale adapted from a self-efficacy scale used in the Comprehensive Organizational Health Assessment (total score range: 0-15). We examined the referrals most frequently made upon screening. Finally, we explored quantitative and qualitative items to assess screeners’ primary concerns with and suggestions for improvement of screenings.

Results: Screeners had worked an average of 5.10 (SD=5.77) HT cases, predominantly involving only commercial sexual exploitation (M=4.67, SD=5.42). The top three indicators for referrals received were: 1) running away four or more times, coupled with a history of sexual abuse (81.3%); history of inappropriate sexual behaviors (60.4%); and being named in a trafficking report (e.g., by parent, law enforcement) (47.9%). Screeners reported moderately strong self-efficacy in conducting the screening (M=11.67, SD=4.10), and most frequently made service referrals to outpatient individual or group counseling for the victim and family/legal guardian (64.6%); substance use disorder treatment services (41.7%); and emergency shelter and runaway center services (37.5%). Two-thirds of the sample reported that their primary screening concern is that youth are not forthcoming. Qualitative responses indicate screeners’ desire for an adaptable screening tool that allows for a conversational tone, yet offers objective guidance in determining likelihood of trafficking victimization.

Conclusions and Implications: Commercial sexual exploitation was the most prevalent form of trafficking with which these workers engaged. Generally, screeners feel efficacious in performing HT screenings, though they expressed concerns around youth’s openness, the rigidity of current screening protocols, and the subjectivity of determining likelihood of trafficking. HT screening training should include specific content on engagement with potentially trafficked youth (e.g., rapport building strategies). Screening assessments should be adaptable to avoid unnecessarily intrusive items, while also offering objective guidance (i.e., scoring guides) to help with screeners’ decision-making.