Implementation Lessons from California's Commercially Sexually Exploited Children Program

Background and Purpose: In 2014, California enacted SB 855 to improve the state’s response to commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC). SB 855 established the Opt-in CSEC Program, which provides county child welfare agencies with guidance and funding to respond to CSE. This paper examined how California’s program is being implemented across the state, barriers and facilitators to its implementation, and how implementation varied across participating counties. Research questions included:

1. What are the components of SB 855?
2. Are counties implementing SB 855 as expected?
3. To what extent did agencies within counties collaborate to implement SB 855?
4. Do counties have the capacity to meet the needs of CSEC?
5. What were the barriers and facilitators to implementing SB 855?
6. How did the implementation of SB 855 vary across counties and why?

Methods: We collected data through an environmental scan and a statewide survey of county CSEC program administrators. To understand the key components of SB 855, we documented counties’ implementation in five major categories: collaboration, staffing and training, screening, services, and data.

The environmental scan collected information about the intended and actual implementation of the three core components of SB 855, identified key implementation milestones, and noted barriers and facilitators to implementation. We conducted a document review by analyzing the county plans submitted to the state as part of SB 855 participation in each fiscal year. The study’s research questions guided the construction of the qualitative coding structure. Themes were examined across counties, including looking at how implementation varied between different county subgroups.

We also conducted a survey of CSEC program administrators to broadly capture the process, quality, and capacity changes and cross-system collaboration that occurred in the participating counties. Responses were received from 46 of the 47 CSEC program counties (98%). We ran descriptive tables to better understand indicators of collaboration, staffing and training, screening, service provision, and data collection and use. We then examined variation in key survey items and implementation scale scores based on subgroups such as urbanicity, region, and CSE rate.

Results: Overall, SB 855 appears to have improved how agencies collaborate to respond to CSE. For example, 89% of counties reported that collaborating agencies work well together to support youth experiencing CSE. Steering committees, interagency protocols, multidisciplinary teaming (MDT), and universal screening for CSE helped facilitate collaboration and successful service provision. Some common challenges included staffing shortages and not having enough placement options for children experiencing exploitation. We also found significant subgroup variation. For example, rural counties were less likely to employ CSE-specific staff and reported having fewer services available for youth.

Conclusions and Implications: California’s CSEC Program has resulted in improved collaboration among youth-serving agencies and has experienced some key successes in preventing and addressing CSE, although the program also has had some significant challenges. There was also variation in CSEC Program implementation among different types of counties. Results from this process evaluation can help guide Opt-in counties’ continuous quality improvement of their CSEC programs.