Session: Evaluation of California's Legislation to Address the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (Society for Social Work and Research 28th Annual Conference - Recentering & Democratizing Knowledge: The Next 30 Years of Social Work Science)

Recent federal and state laws (safe harbor laws) have led to a sharp decrease in criminalization of youth due to their involvement in the commercial sex industry. In 2014, the California legislature enacted SB 855 to better address commercial sexual exploitation of children in three ways. SB 855 defined a commercially sexually exploited child (CSEC) as any child who is sexually trafficked or who receives food, shelter or money in exchange for sexual acts. It clarified the child welfare system's ability to intervene on behalf of children experiencing CSE when a parent is unable to protect their child. It created the Opt-in CSEC Program, which provides participating county child welfare agencies with guidance and funding to prevent and intervene on behalf of children who are commercially sexually exploited or are at-risk of experiencing CSE. To date, over 75% of California counties have opted into the CSEC funding and developed and implemented interagency protocols, procedures and specialized services to identify, document, address, and prevent CSE.

The California Department of Social Services contracted with the California Child Welfare Indicators Project at the University of California Berkeley and the Urban Institute to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the CSEC Program. Throughout, the evaluation was guided by an advisory board comprising survivors of commercial sexual exploitation. This symposium will present findings from: 1) an examination of program data including over 200 county plans and a statewide administrator survey that describe how counties implemented the CSEC Program, 2) 12 in-depth case studies from site visits that illuminate common challenges and key successes from the CSEC Program, and 3) a review of administrative data that examines child welfare outcomes after CSEC Program implementation.

Despite the variation in counties' geography, CSE population, and other factors, we found that there were many shared challenges across the state. A key gap identified was the lack of a mechanism to serve youth at risk for CSE who are not under the jurisdiction of the child welfare agency. Counties expressed a need for updated training that looks at current CSE trends (e.g., cyber recruitment). There were also shared successes among counties. Many noted that it was helpful to have a child welfare unit specifically designated to respond to CSE. Several counties have implemented a 24/7 dual response from child welfare and a CSE advocate through a non-profit agency when going out for maltreatment investigations. Finally, some unique best practices emerged, including processes for serving youth who are not child welfare-involved. Findings from the child welfare administrative data outcome study reveal significant heterogeneity in the identification of CSE victimization and case openings following CSE identification.

This work highlights specific challenges and creative solutions to these shared challenges around supporting youth experiencing CSE, and the public policy effects of providing funding to counties to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration.