Enhancing the Identification of Commercial Sexual Exploitation Among a Population of High-Risk Youths Using Predictive Regularization Models

Abstract

Despite an increasing awareness about the existence and harms of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), the identification of victims remains a challenge for practitioners, hindering their ability to provide appropriate services. Tools that gauge risk of CSEC support the identification of victims but are underdeveloped because most tools assess risk of CSEC within a general youth population. An understanding of what predicts actual CSEC victimizations among youths at higher risk of CSEC due to experiences of childhood adversities has been left unassessed. Research in this area is limited in part because traditional methods do not allow for an assessment of the unique impact of childhood adversities that tend to co-occur. To address these difficulties, the current study applied predictive regularization methods to identify the most decisive risk items for CSEC. Proximal risk of CSEC was assessed among 317 youths who were referred to a specialized program in the Northeast of the United States due to suspicion of CSEC. With an innovative methodological approach, this study seeks to prompt other scholars to examine risk utilizing novel techniques and provides a foundation for the development of concise tools that assess risk of CSEC among populations of youths at higher levels of risk.

Toward a Global Definition and Understanding of Child Sexual Exploitation: The Development of a Conceptual Model

“…Across the 74 studies 10 main terms emerged within the analysis (see Table 2). Of the included studies, the term prostitution or language which operationalised the ‘selling of sex’ or ‘sex work’ for adolescents and children was utilised the most ( n = 12: Fredlund et al, 2018; Grosso et al, 2015; Kaestle, 2012; Lavoie et al, 2010; Lung et al, 2004; Nadon et al, 1998; Pedersen & Hegna, 2003; Rana, 2021; Sathyanarayana & Babu, 2012; Swahn et al, 2016; Wilson & Widom, 2010; Yates, 1991), followed by studies which utilised the term ‘commercial sexual exploitation’ ( n = 10: Bath et al, 2020; De Vries & Goggin, 2020; Franchino-Olsen, 2021; Hampton & Lieggi, 2020; Reid, 2011, 2014; Reid & Piquero, 2014, 2016; Rothman et al, 2019; Tsutomu Tanaka et al, 2019) or ‘commercial sexual exploitation of children’ specifically ( n = 8: Chang et al, 2016; De Vries et al, 2020; Lanctôt et al, 2020; Naramore et al, 2017; Panlilio et al, 2019; Rothman et al, 2020; Salisbury et al, 2015; Self-Brown et al, 2018). ‘Domestic minor sex trafficking’ ( n = 9: Chohaney, 2016; Ertl et al, 2020; Fedina et al, 2019; Moore et al, 2019, 2020, O’Brien et al, 2017a, 2017; Raj et al, 2019; Twis et al, 2020), ‘child sexual exploitation’ ( n = 8: Barnert et al, 2020; Blackburn et al, 2010; Commission for Children and Young People, 2015; Cook & Mott, 2020; Gatwiri et al, 2020; McKibbin, 2017;…”

Instruments for the Identification of Child Sexual Exploitation: A Systematic Review

“…Most of the instruments were aimed at minors of both sexes aged between 11 and 18 years, although some covered a broader age range (e.g.,, from 6 to 24 years, in the case of the study by De Vries et al, 2020). The studies by Chang et al (2015) and Raj et al (2019) included only females.…”

“…In most of the instruments (12 out of 15) the information to complete them came from multiple sources (young people, teachers, caregivers) using several methods (e.g., conversations, observations, case records). However, one instrument included information only from the minor (Leitch & Snow, 2007), another from their medical history (Raj et al, 2019), and another from the records in the social service they attended (De Vries et al, 2020).…”

Recommendations for Educating Youth about Sex Trafficking

“…Many terms are used to describe sex trafficking of minors, such as commercial sexual exploitation of children, child sexual exploitation, domestic trafficking, domestic minor sex trafficking, and survival sex (Bath et al, 2020;Dank, 2011;Davidson, 2020;de Vries et al, 2019;Edwards et al, 2006;Estes & Weiner, 2001;Gerassi et al, 2019;Greenbaum, 2020;Greene et al, 1999;Hornor et al, 2020;O'Brien et al, 2017;Twis, 2020;Williamson et al, 2012). For the purposes of this paper, we use the term "sex trafficking" to match language in state policies around sex trafficking education for youth (Florida Department of Education, 2019;Session Law 2019-245, 2019Assembly Bill 1227U.S.…”

“…Thus, students should receive education on the dangers and realities of sex trafficking, and they should have confidence in teachers and other school personnel to protect them and respond accordingly when disclosures are made (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Importantly, educational efforts should be tailored to include contexts, examples, and details most relevant to youth and their social relationships (Davidson, 2020;de Vries et al, 2019;Greene et al, 1999;Payne & Button, 2009).…”