Child Abuse and Neglect
Volume 40, 2015, Pages 113-123
Sex trafficking of minors in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural communities (Article)
Cole J.* ,
Sprang G.
-
a
Center on Trauma and Children, University of Kentucky, 3470 Blazer Parkway, Suite 100, Lexington, KY 40509, United States, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky, 333 Waller Avenue, Suite 480, Lexington, KY 40504, United States
-
b
Center on Trauma and Children, University of Kentucky, 3470 Blazer Parkway, Suite 100, Lexington, KY 40509, United States
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine professionals' awareness, knowledge, and experiences working with youth victims of sex trafficking in metropolitan and non-metropolitan communities. Professionals who worked with at-risk youth and/or crime victims were recruited from all counties in a southern, rural state in the U.S. to complete a telephone survey. Surveys included closed and open-ended questions, which were theme coded. Professionals' (. n = 289) were classified into one of four categories based on the counties in which they worked: metropolitan, micropolitan, rural, and all three community types. Although there were many similarities found in trafficking situations across the different types of communities, some expected differences were found. First, as expected, more professionals in metropolitan communities perceived CSEC as being a fairly or very serious problem in the state overall. Consistent with other studies, more professionals in metropolitan communities had received training on human trafficking and reported they were familiar with the state and federal laws on human trafficking (Newton et al., 2008). Significantly more professionals in metropolitan (54.7%) communities reported they had worked with a suspected or definite victim of STM compared to professionals in micropolitan communities (29.8%). There were few differences in victim characteristics, vulnerability factors, and trafficking situations (e.g., relationship to trafficker, traffickers' techniques for controlling victims, transportation, and Internet-facilitation of trafficking) across the community types. There is a continued need for awareness building of STM and training, particularly in non-metropolitan communities, as well as adoption of screening tools, integration of trauma-informed care, and identification of best practices. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
Author Keywords
Index Keywords
Link
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84964257932&doi=10.1016%2fj.chiabu.2014.07.015&partnerID=40&md5=05cfc1451e9f9d73a1915790f1fe824f
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.015
ISSN: 01452134
Cited by: 34
Original Language: English