University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Housing challenges for commercial sexual exploitation of children: a gap analysis of shelter retention rates

(USC Thesis Other)

Housing challenges for commercial sexual exploitation of children: a gap analysis of shelter retention rates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 1

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR COMMERCIAL SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN: A GAP ANALYSIS OF SHELTER RETENTION RATES

by

Rodney Ray Duckwitz

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Rodney Ray Duckwitz
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of my studies would not be possible without the unconditional
support of my family, friends, and colleagues. I am truly grateful for all of the words of
encouragement and motivation I received from those around me over the last three years.
Throughout the process, those closest to me always seemed to know when I needed an extra push
or simply space to work.
Above all, I would like to thank my wife and daughters for their love and support
throughout this process. LeLani, thank you for your selfless efforts to carry the extra load and
take care of our family without complaint. It has made all the difference. To Lacy and Lily,
know that you inspire me to always give my best and make you proud. Your love, support, and
sacrifice of time is not forgotten.
I would like to recognize Waymakers for the extraordinary work they do and for the
continued support the organization provided along the way. I would also like to give special
recognition to Juan Reveles of the Anaheim Police Department for his dedication and patience in
helping me understand the CSEC population. His passion for combatting human trafficking is
contagious. To the CSEC survivors who participated in this study, thank you for trusting me
with your stories and finding the courage to share so deeply.
Lastly, I would like to thank my committee, Dr. Ken Yates, Dr. Briana Hinga, and Dr.
Melora Sundt. Your guidance and mentorship throughout the process was incredible. Your
leadership challenged me to produce quality work while at the same time creating a learning
environment that made the dissertation process seem achievable.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Status 12
Related Literature 12
Importance of Addressing the Problem 15
Organizational Performance Goal 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups 15
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study 17
Critical Behaviors for the Stakeholder of Focus 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 18
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 19
Definitions 19
Organization of the Project 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
Understanding the Victims 23
CSEC Demographics 23
History of Abuse 24
Impacts of Trauma 25
High-Risk Lifestyles 25
Recruitment and Control 26
Trafficker’s Perspective 26
The Grooming Process 26
Trauma Bond 27
Stolen Identity 28
Emergency Housing Options 28
Family 28
Group Homes 29
Foster Care 30
Conceptual Framework 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 31
Knowledge and Skills 31
Motivation 36
Organization 41
Chapter Three: Methodology 47
Purpose of the Project and Questions 47
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 47
Assessment of Performance Influences 48
Knowledge Assessment 49
Motivation Assessment 53
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment 57
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 4
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 60
Sampling 61
Recruitment 61
Instrumentation and Data Collection 62
Interview Protocol Design and Data Collection 62
Focus Group Design and Data Collection 64
Observation Checklist Design 65
Data Analysis 65
Interviews 66
Focus Group 66
Observations 67
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data 67
Role of Investigator 68
Limitations and Delimitations 69
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 71
Participating Stakeholders 71
Determination of Assets and Needs 72
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 73
Factual Knowledge 74
Conceptual Knowledge 76
Procedural Knowledge 77
Metacognitive Knowledge 79
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 81
Value 82
Self-Efficacy 83
Mood 85
Attribution 86
Goal 88
Results and Findings for Organization Influences 90
Resources 90
Policies, Processes, & Procedures 93
Culture 97
Summary of Influences 101
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation 104
Purpose of the Project and Questions 104
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences 104
Knowledge Recommendations 105
Introduction. 105
Declarative knowledge solutions. 107
Conceptual knowledge solutions. 108
Procedural knowledge solutions. 109
Motivation Recommendations 110
Introduction 110
Value solutions. 112
Self-efficacy solutions. 112
Mood solutions. 113
Attribution solutions 114
Organization Recommendations 115
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 5
Introduction 115
Policies and procedures solutions. 117
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 119
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 119
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 120
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 120
Level 3: Behavior 122
Level 2: Learning 125
Level 1: Reaction 128
Data Analysis and Reporting 130
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation 130
Limitations and Delimitations 132
Recommendations for Future Research 133
Conclusion 134
References 136
Appendix A: Informed Consent 149
Appendix B: Guiding Questions for Interviews/Focus Group 154
Appendix C: Facility Observation Checklist 157
Appendix D: Immediate Evaluation 159
Appendix E: Observer Evaluation 160
Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation: 90-Day Survey 161
Appendix G: Dashboards for Riverview County Shelter Website 162
Appendix H: Site Permission Letter 163

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 17
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on CSEC Victim’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal 35
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on CSEC Victim’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal 41
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on CSEC Victim’s Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 45
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 51
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 56
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 59
Table 8: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 101
Table 9: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 102
Table 10: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 102
Table 11: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 106
Table 12: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 111
Table 13: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 116
Table 14: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 121
Table 15: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 122
Table 16: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Victims as Stakeholders 123
Table 17: Required Drivers for Staff 124
Table 18: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. 127
Table 19: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 128

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Gap analysis process adapted from Clark and Estes (2008). 48

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 8
ABSTRACT
This study applied the gap analysis framework to understand the housing challenges associated
with the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) as they relate to shelter retention
rates in the Riverview County Social Services Agency. The purpose of this study was to conduct
a needs assessment of CSEC victims, through the lens of survivors, in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources that require improvements by the agency to increase
retention rates. The study applied a mixed-methods approach that included semi-structured
interviews, a focus group, and site observations. The collected data, which was coded and
analyzed, identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of CSEC victims in the
shelter. The findings allow the organization to make informed decisions, based on victims’
needs, which support their goal of maximizing shelter retention rates. Further, the study
proposed solutions for each of the established needs and provided evidence-based
recommendations supported by academic literature. This study contributes to the nation-wide
effort to end the cycle of sexual exploitation by offering recommendations that may enhance the
level of service to CSEC victims in similar settings.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Jennifer’s Story

Jennifer is a seventeen-year-old human trafficking victim from southern California.
Today, the county human trafficking task force picked her up in a sting operation on a well know
track. Task force officers found her with a 43-year-old male who paid her for sex. Task force
officers and advocates worked to secure her safety, tended to her immediate physical needs, and
placed her in a local shelter. Over the last 3 years, Jennifer has been forced to have sex with 10-
12 men each day only to turn over her earnings to her trafficker. For Jennifer, there were no
days off, weekends, holidays, or escape from the life she led. Her trafficker controlled every
aspect of her life. He turned her out onto the streets, required her to earn at least $800 a day
selling her body, and beat her when she came up short. Jennifer worked, ate, and slept when
told. As a sign of control, Jennifer’s trafficker branded her left check with his name so those on
the street would know who owned her.
Now, Jennifer’s tragic story is drawing to a close. She has a renewed opportunity at a life
that is free of oppression and trafficking, supported by police and advocates eager to help her.
She will have access to a wide range of resources, services, and dedicated staff to help her
reclaim her life. Despite Jennifer’s history of violence and abuse, however, all she can think
about is her trafficker’s fate. Will he be arrested? Will she see him again? “You are ruining my
life!” Jennifer tells investigators. Although difficult to understand, Jennifer believes her
trafficker actually loves her and that he is the best thing going in her life. Only he understands
what she needs. In a matter of days, Jennifer will likely leave the safety and support of her
shelter placement and return to the abusive arms of her trafficker. She will be back on the street
where her story began, at continual risk of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 10
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Human trafficking, commonly described as modern-day slavery, affects the freedom of
over 20 million people per year (Polaris Project, 2017). As many as 43% of those trafficked
each year are done so for the purpose of sexual exploitation, with the United States being among
the top 10 destinations (Hepburn & Simon, 2010). The Federal Strategic Action Plan on
Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States (President’s Interagency Task
Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, 2014) identified housing as a critical
service needed for the long-term recovery of trafficking survivors. Access to housing,
particularly facilities specializing in commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), is
limited and non-existent in many areas (Davy, 2015; Liles, Blacker, Landini, & Urquiza, 2016).
A lack of access to this essential service increases the likelihood of continued exploitation, as
vulnerable youth often have nowhere else to go.
It is important to establish a frame of reference as to how the researcher discusses CSEC
throughout the study. Society often labels those who experience sexual exploitation with the
term “victim,” an identity that can denote a lack of power or agency (Loomba, 2017). For many,
the term “survivor” invokes a sense of empowerment suggesting that the impacted individual
successfully endured a recovery process (Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, 2015). Participants in
this study were asked which term they prefer. The majority of the participants expressed a sense
of pride associated with the word “survivor,” stating it represented a milestone in their progress.
Some shared that the word “survivor” also felt like a label and preferred people simply address
them by their names. “Victim” and “survivor” are both appropriate terms depending on the
context (Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, 2015). This paper uses the terms “victim” and “survivor”
interchangeably depending on the situation. The term “survivor” generally applies to the
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 11
participant’s current state while the term “victim” is reflective of periods of exploitation and pre-
recovery experiences.
Organizational Context and Mission
Governed by the board of supervisors and the California Department of Social Services
and Health Care, the Riverview County Social Services Agency (a pseudonym) and its more than
4,000 employees serves one of the largest counties in Southern California. The county’s strong
economic engine supports major theme parks, sports centers, and entertainment venues and is
home to more than 3 million people. Despite the overarching good fortune enjoyed by many, 1
in 4 families living in the county relies on the agency for critical services. A $900 million
budget funds essential programs and services that help protect individuals of all ages from abuse,
neglect, and exploitation. Employee efforts support the agency’s mission of delivering
responsive services to the community in a manner that promotes safety and strength for
vulnerable individuals while, at the same time, preserving and protecting families (Orange
County Human Trafficking Task Force [OCHTTF], 2017). Adult services and assistance
programs, children and family services, family self-sufficiency, and administrative services are
the core divisions of the agency. Each division does its part to help facilitate federal, state, and
county resources, which play a vital role in enhancing the quality of life for vulnerable
populations. The division of children and family services is responsible for facilitating the
assessment, intervention, and placement options for children in crisis, including CSEC victims.
The division follows the guiding principles of the Child Welfare Continuum of Care Reform to
reduce the use of congregate care, enhance trauma-informed services, and to promote positive
outcomes for dependent youth.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 12
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem examined in this study is the agency’s ability to
maintain effective housing for CSEC victims. Riverview County Social Services Agency lodges
victims in a 24-hour emergency shelter pursuant to the California Welfare and Institution Code
300 (b) (2). The agency seeks viable long-term placement options, such as family, non-relative
extended family members, or foster parents to establish safety and stability for victims. In 2016,
the agency accepted 14 CSEC victims via petition, two of whom returned home without incident.
Of those remaining, seven ran away. The retention rate decreased in 2017 as all 11 minors
received into emergency housing ran away at some point during the process. Similarly, in 2018,
the agency placed five victims into emergency housing and all five of the children ran away prior
to obtaining long-term housing. The current pattern represents a 100% gap in the organization’s
ability to retain victims long enough to locate permanent housing options. This gap impedes the
organizational mission of protecting vulnerable populations, such as CSEC victims. The ability
to retain these victims in emergency housing ensures the greatest opportunity to break the cycle
of victimization and begin the journey toward survivorship.
Related Literature
According to Todres (2010), millions of children around the world become victims of
human trafficking each year. One of the most graphic and dehumanizing types of trafficking is
that of CSEC. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 defines severe forms of
human trafficking as commercial sex acts “induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the
person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age” (TVPA, 2000, Section 103,
8a). Trafficking also includes “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining
of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 13
subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery” (TVPA, 2000, Section
103, 8b). This is a multibillion-dollar industry driven by demand. Human trafficking, according
to McGough (2013), continues to rise as predators weigh the high potential for monetary gain
against the low risk of apprehension.
Exploitation is a growing problem that is not restricted to third world countries.
Numerous counts of victimization occur here in America as well. The National Center for
Homeless Education estimated that traffickers sexually exploit over 300,000 women and children
in the United States each year (The National Center for Homeless Education, 2017). Within the
United States, California remains a primary destination for CSEC. According to the Federal
Bureau of Investigations, California is home to three of the nation’s top child prostitution
locations (Judicial Council of California, 2017). The 2016 Human Trafficking Victim Report
revealed that 22% of the juvenile human trafficking cases identified in California originated in
Riverview (pseudonym) County (OCHTTF, 2017).
While each victim’s story is unique, runaway youth are prime targets for sex trafficking
predators. Traffickers capitalize on the fact that runaways have limited resources and are less
likely to seek interaction with the police (Tyler & Beal, 2010). Runaways often engage in a
lifestyle of risky behavior and adaptive strategies to survive, including survival sex (Ark of Hope
for Children, 2017). The National Center for Homeless Education (2017) estimates that 60% of
runaway and homeless youth between 10 and 17 years old find themselves at risk of becoming
CSEC victims, with one-third of runaways engaging in prostitution within 48 hours of leaving
home. Despite the vulnerable status of these youth, the justice system has a history of
marginalizing them even further.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 14
Until recently, authorities pursued, arrested, and prosecuted violators of all ages. When it
came to sex trafficking, many officers believed that victims were willing participants who
engaged in sex acts for personal financial gain (Farrell, Pfeffer, & Bright, 2015). The enactment
of new legislation, known as safe harbor laws, decriminalized prostitution acts by minors
previously considered delinquents (Meads, 2017). The California Penal Code now excludes
children under 18 years of age from any criminal liability for participation in commercial sex
acts (CPC 236.1(e); CPC 647(b)5). Modern thinking recognizes incarceration is not the answer
for CSEC victims (Liles et al., 2016); however, housing and rehabilitation options for CSEC
victims remain limited (Jordan, Patel, & Rapp, 2013). Safe harbor laws changed the game for
the criminal justice system, as yesterday’s criminals became today’s victims, but the support
system backing this progressive thinking lags behind.
Authorities rely on traditional shelter options for CSEC victims such as those developed
for battered women, abused children, and runaways. While marginalized groups often encounter
similar obstacles and social stigmas, each group has its own special needs (The United Nations
Development Program, 2016). Shelters for homeless and domestic violence victims are
generally not prepared to address the distinct needs of trafficking victims (Okech, Morreau, &
Benson, 2011). The stigma of prostitution, for example, can further marginalize CSEC victims
by creating additional barriers that separate them from others in the shelter. While these
locations may offer temporary shelter and safety, the environment can compromise the
psychological and emotional needs of victims. CSEC victims frequently run away from shelters
and return to the streets, often rejoining the trafficker who was exploiting them (Reid, 2016).
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 15
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The consequences for trafficked youth are devastating. The experience generates
physical and psychological trauma that could last a lifetime, including disease and addictions
leading to death (U.S. Department of State, 2017). The Riverview County Social Services
Agency is committed to providing critical services to CSEC victims to ensure their safety and to
promote a healthy recovery. Victims who run away from the county facility prior to establishing
long-term housing place themselves at extreme risk. They are back on the street and vulnerable
to exploitation. The clandestine nature of sex trafficking adds to the challenge of relocating and
identifying victims (Todres, 2010). There may not be a second chance to assist a victim once
they are gone. Closing this performance gap is essential to ending the cycle of exploitation and
maximizing the avenues of recovery for every victim.
Organizational Performance Goal
The Riverview County Social Service Agency’s (RCSSA) goal is that, by December
2021, it will achieve a 100% retention rate of CSEC victims in the emergency shelter while they
await long-term housing options. The board of supervisors established this goal based on
standards of practice adopted by the California Department of Social Services and Health Care
and believes it is a vital component of victim recovery. The achievement of the RCSSA’s goal
will be measured by the retention results presented in its annual report for 2021.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Human trafficking victims endure extensive physical and psychological abuse throughout
their exploitation (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2019). Effectively
transitioning from CSEC victim to survivor is not easy and may require years of care and
assistance. While numerous individuals and organizations play a role in the recovery process, the
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 16
key stakeholders in Riverview County are the social services agency and the victims themselves.
Within the social service agency, there are two distinct stakeholders: administration and the
emergency shelter staff. Working together, they strive to provide holistic services that meet the
immediate and long-term needs of all CSEC victims in their care.
To achieve the organizational goal, all of the stakeholders must work diligently to do
their part. The daily efforts of shelter staff contribute to the safety and emotional well-being of
the victims they serve. Staff members tend to a variety of dependent youth housed in the
emergency shelter. Working with CSEC victims, however, requires an elevated level of
dedication and care. Despite their intense experiences, the CSEC population often do not
identify as victims and reject efforts to help them. Administrators pave the way for success by
providing staff with the essential tools, training, and resources required to address these
challenges. Their leadership, support, and policies maintain the safety and emotional health of
the organization. Victims, too, are stakeholders in their own recovery. Achieving the
organizational goal requires the victim’s continued presence, participation, and, in many cases, a
leap of faith in the system itself.
Stakeholders ’ Performance Goals
Table 1 clarifies the mission of the Riverview County Social Services Agency and
identifies the goals individual stakeholders must achieve for the agency to successfully reach its
organizational performance goal.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 17
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The Riverview County Social Services Agency mission is to deliver responsive services to the
community in a manner that promotes safety and strength for vulnerable individuals, while at
the same time preserving and protecting families (RCSSA, 2017).
Organizational Performance Goal
The Riverview County Social Service Agency’s goal is that by December 2021, it will achieve
a 100% retention rate of CSEC victims in their emergency shelter while they await long-term
housing options.
SSA Administration Goal SSA Shelter Staff Goal: CSEC Victims Goal:
By July 2020, administrators
will develop a training plan for
staff members that focuses on
CSEC victim retention.
By January 2021, 100 % of
shelter staff will implement
effective intervention
techniques to increase CSEC
retention rates.
By December 2021, 100% of
CSEC victims will remain in
emergency shelters until
properly placed in long-term
housing.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a comprehensive analysis of CSEC housing would reflect viewpoints of all
stakeholders, this study focuses on the victims. Victims ultimately choose to remain in an
emergency shelter or run away, a decision that directly affects the organizational goal of
achieving a 100% retention rate. Clark and Estes (2008) found that a common mistake made
during a gap analysis is the assumption of understanding others’ perspective on the performance
goal. Examining the performance gap through the victim’s lens may yield valuable insight
leading to higher retention rates. To support the organizational goal, 100% of CSEC victims will
need to remain in the county facility until properly placed in long-term housing. Goal
achievement will be measured with a review of victim files and the retention rates recorded in
the social service agency’s annual report.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 18

Critical Behaviors for the Stakeholder of Focus
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that critical behaviors are detailed patterns
of conduct that, when performed regularly, significantly contribute to achieving a desired
outcome. For CSEC victims to achieve their goal, they need to perform these listed critical
behaviors on a daily basis:
1. Refrain from leaving the emergency shelter without authorization,
2. Participate in counseling sessions focused on CSEC victim recovery, and
3. Cooperate with staff attempting to secure long-term housing placements.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to uncover the reasons the
organization struggles with the retention of CSEC victims in its shelters. The process will
explore potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that hinder the Riverview
County Social Services Agency from achieving its organizational goal. While a complete and
comprehensive gap analysis would incorporate all stakeholders, for practical purposes, this study
focuses on one stakeholder only: the victims. Concentrating on the victims serves to inform the
agency of essential needs victims have that require the organization’s attention. The analysis
will begin by creating a list of possible or assumed influences that will be examined
systematically to focus on actual or validated causes leading to the performance gap. The
questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
CSEC victims remaining in emergency shelters until properly placed in long-term
housing?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 19
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, will be implemented as the conceptual framework.
The methodology of the study is built on the Clark and Estes framework, which is used as
a priori categories to record results. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that interfere with Riverview County Social Services Agency’s goal achievement will
be generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These influences were assessed
by using interviews, focus groups, document analysis, literature review and content analysis.
Research-based solutions will be recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Definitions
Listed below are relevant terms, definitions, and slang phrases commonly used in
association human trafficking, particularly when discussing CSEC.
Branding: A tattoo or carving on a victim that indicates ownership by a trafficker/pimp
(Judicial Council of California, 2017).
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC): The sexual exploitation of
children entirely, or at least primarily, for financial or other economic reasons. The exchanges
may be either monetary or non-monetary (i.e., for food, shelter, drugs) but, in every case,
involves maximum benefits to the exploiter and an abrogation of the basic rights, dignity,
autonomy, physical and mental well-being of the children involved (Judicial Council of
California, 2017).
Daddy: The term a pimp will often require his victim to call him (Judicial Council of
California, 2017).
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 20
Emergency Shelter: Living facilities that offer essential services on a limited basis
(usually less than 90 days) as an alternative to living on the street. (Bennett, Williamson,
Spangler, & Jimenez, 2017).
Family/Folks: Term used to describe all individuals under the control of the same pimp.
The pimp/trafficker plays the role of father (or “Daddy”) while the group fulfills the need for a
“family” (Judicial Council of California, 2017).
John: Individual who pays for or trades something of value for sexual acts (Judicial
Council of California, 2017).
Out of Pocket: Referring to a victim who is disobeying the pimp’s rules (Judicial
Council of California, 2017)
Pimp: A person who controls and financially benefits from the commercial sexual
exploitation of another person. The relationship can be abusive and possessive, with the pimp
using techniques such as psychological intimidation, manipulation, starvation, rape and/or gang
rape, beating, confinement, threats of violence toward the victim’s family, forced drug use, and
shame to keep the exploited person under control (Judicial Council of California, 2017).
Quota: A set amount of money that a trafficking victim must make each night. Quotas
are often set between $300 and $2000 and vary by location (Judicial Council of California,
2017).
Seasoning: A combination of psychological manipulation, intimidation, gang rape,
sodomy, beatings, deprivation of food or sleep, isolation from friends or family and other sources
of support, and threatening or holding hostage of a victim’s children (Judicial Council of
California, 2017).
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 21
Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program: A residential facility that provides
integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports,
treatment, and short-term 24-hour care and supervision to children; formerly known as group
homes (California Department of Social Services, 2019b).
The Game/The Life: The subculture of prostitution, complete with rules, a hierarchy of
authority, and language. Referring to pimping as “the game” gives the illusion that it can be a fun
and easy way to make money, when the reality is much harsher (Judicial Council of California,
2017).
Traffickers: Individuals who exploit others for profit. They can be any demographic,
groups, street gangs and organized crime, businesses or contractors (Judicial Council of
California, 2017).
Trauma-Informed Care: Care that understands and accounts for the multiple layers of
trauma experienced by victims and survivors (Destiny Rescue, 2019).
Wifeys/Wifey-in Law: What girls under the control of the same pimp call each other
(Judicial Council of California, 2017).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about CSEC and the challenge of
maintaining retention rates for victims housed in emergency shelters. The organization’s
mission, goals, and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis were introduced.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics
such as trauma bonding, intervention strategies, policies, and current housing options will be
addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed interfering elements as well as methodology
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 22
regarding the choice of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results will be assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and
literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Human trafficking is a global problem that continues to rise each year. The potential for
easy money with minimal risk drives the sexual exploitation industry (McGough, 2013). The
clandestine nature of sexual exploitation masked the scale of the problem for years in many
countries, including the United States (National Institute of Justice, 2017). It is now known that
as many as 300,000 of America’s children become entangled in sex trafficking each year.
Among those at greatest risk are runaways and homeless youth willing to compromise their
dignity and bodies in exchange for food, shelter, and security (Ark of Hope for Children, 2017).
Continuing to develop and support long-term recovery solutions is paramount to mitigating the
physical and psychological damage these children experience.
This chapter begins with a review of factors influencing the sexual exploitation of today’s
youth. It seeks to increase understanding of this unique population by reviewing patterns of
abuse, trafficker grooming practices, and current housing and service options for CSEC victims.
This chapter will then discuss the role these victims play in their recovery process and provide an
explanation of knowledge, motivation and organizational influences’ lens used in this study. The
chapter will conclude with a presentation of the conceptual framework highlighting the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of this study’s participants.
Understanding the Victims
CSEC Demographics
A multi-billion-dollar industry, CSEC affects every race, color, gender, socioeconomic
status, and cultural group (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2019). While
predators target victims of all ages, the state statute for CSEC narrows the scope of victims to
sexually exploited youth under 18 years of age. Research shows the average age of victims
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 24
entering “the life” to be between 12 and 14, although numerous cases identify traffickers
soliciting much younger targets (Smith, Vardaman, & Snow, 2009). An estimated 98% of those
trafficked for sexual exploitation are women, but men and boys are also at risk (Hepburn &
Simon, 2010). The sexual exploitation of young men and boys in the United States remains
clandestine and often unreported (U.S. Department of State, 2017). Further, gender bias reduces
the image of male vulnerability by portraying them as having greater control over their sexual
encounters (Mitchell et al., 2017). This fact may skew the numbers of males reported as victims.
Sex trafficking victims originate domestically and from outside the United States, both in rural
and urban areas (Ark of Hope for Children, 2017). In Riverview County, approximately 83% of
CSEC assisted in 2018 were from the United States, and 17% were foreign nationals. Victims
were predominantly Black (32%), Hispanic (23%), and White (20%; OCHTTF, 2017). Although
no defining characteristic exists that encompasses all CSEC, victims tend to exhibit vulnerable
traits such as poverty, homelessness, and risky lifestyles in additions to having limited friends,
family, and resources for support (President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons, 2014).
History of Abuse
Family history plays an active role in creating conditions that lead to CSEC. Unstable
home environments that include physical and sexual abuse are common among CSEC victims
(Estes & Weiner, 2001). In addition to the abuse that occurs within the home, a family member
is often the first to introduce a child to commercial sex trafficking (Smith et al., 2009). Abusers
leverage family relationships for items such as money, food, and drugs. These inappropriate and
exploitative interactions create a misguided sense of love, relationships, and socialization
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 25
(Hanna, 2002). Experiences of early abuse by a parent, relative, or caregiver are traumatic
events that lead to an increased risk of further victimization.
Impacts of Trauma
A history of childhood trauma levies social and emotional challenges on victims. Early
trauma imposes neurological and psychological consequences on lifespan development,
potentially altering perceptions of one’s self and those around them (Dye, 2018). These events
have long-term effects on an individual’s ability to develop healthy relationships and interact
productively in society. The development of post-traumatic stress disorder is common among
CSEC victims (Farley, Baral, Kiremire, & Sezgin, 1998). Chronic or extreme trauma creates
changes in the body that impede victims’ ability to regulate stress and emotions (Dye, 2018;
Nemeroff, 2004). The altered state challenges victims to fight depression, control mood swings,
and set appropriate personal boundaries (Farley et al., 1998). Individuals who are unable to
regulate their emotional state react impulsively and make poor life choices.
High-Risk Lifestyles
The behavior patterns of youth can significantly elevate the risks of exploitation. Even in
the best of conditions, the developmental stage of adolescence and early teens increases their
susceptibility to manipulations and deceit, as their prefrontal cortex is still developing (Reid &
Jones, 2011). The prefrontal cortex, which is the area of the brain undergoing the most change
during adolescence, is responsible for cognitive behaviors and weighing issues of risk versus
reward (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). Thus, there is a biological basis for immaturity,
impulsiveness, and risk-taking exhibited by most youth. The struggles and challenges of living
on the street cause impressionable youth to further stretch their behavioral boundaries with little
thought to the long-term consequences. An estimated one-third of runaway youth trade sex for
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 26
money, food, or drugs and, although conscious of sexually transmitted diseases, little more than
half report using condoms (Greenblatt & Robertson, 1993). A minority voice in the literature
question the magnitude of risk runaway youth face from sexual predators and believe the
problem of CSEC is overstated (Horning, 2013). A lack of maturity and good judgment,
however, inhibits youths’ ability to resist the coercive tactics of savvy predators.
Recruitment and Control
Trafficker ’s Perspective
While all youth are potential targets, commercial sex traffickers focus on those who are
most vulnerable. Traffickers have a strong need to control their victims and often use fraud and
deceit to manipulate them (Bouché & Shady, 2017). Sexual predators seek out youth with low
self-esteem, emotional challenges, and minimal resources (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2009). By building seemingly loving relationships, traffickers gradually isolate
potential victims from family, friends, and the few support systems they might have. Runaway
youth are prime targets as they frequently engage in risky lifestyle behaviors, such as survival
sex (Ark of Hope for Children, 2017). Traffickers view runaways as being easy to manipulate
and control (Ivy & Hunter, 2007). Traffickers are known to use peers or classmates to recruit
victims and often target troubled youth at malls, schools, group homes, foster care, and treatment
centers (U.S. Department of Education, 2015; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2009). Alone and vulnerable, the stage for grooming is set.
The Grooming Process
No girl dreams about a life of prostitution, but all have hopes and dreams that a savvy
trafficker can exploit. Experienced traffickers are masters at their craft. They listen carefully to
what is missing in a victim’s life and leverage that information to exploit their vulnerabilities
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 27
(Ivy & Hunter, 2007). Knowledge becomes a powerful tool for making connections and building
relationships. The grooming process can start seemingly innocent as a trafficker slowly works
their way through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to gain control (Smith et al., 2009). Many
contacts begin by offering assistance with simple needs such as food or shelter, and, for many
youths surviving on their own, shelter from a stranger can seem safer than the street (Williams,
2010). Traffickers progress quickly through the grooming process by building self-esteem,
belonging, opportunity, and even love (Smith et al., 2009; Williams, 2010). Ivy and Hunter
(2007) stated that developing exploitable relationships with vulnerable youth can be as easy as
asking them about their dreams in life and listening to the answer. These relationships, built on a
false sense of love and trust, often create intense connections with victims that are difficult to
break.
Trauma Bond
Mental shackles, known as trauma bonds, are the cornerstones of human trafficking. The
trauma bond is a dysfunctional yet intense attachment of a victim to their trafficker, a connection
Reid and Jones (2011) regard as the “superglue” of sexual exploitation. The effects of trauma
bonding generate responses similar to Stockholm syndrome when victims develop an emotional
or psychological connection with their captor, or the reaction of many domestic violence victims
who choose to remain with an abusive partner (Lloyd, 2012; Smith et al., 2009). Despite
common rationale, these youth do not see themselves as victims. They may believe they are in
love with their traffickers and resist efforts to rescue them from a life that feels normal (Lloyd,
2012). Based on these unorthodox connections and sense of family, it is not uncommon for
victims to leave protective custody to rejoin the trafficker who was previously exploiting them
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 28
(Reid, 2016). Traffickers indoctrinate victims into the life and then exercise every measure
possible to maintain control.
Stolen Identity
An extension of the trauma bond is a loss of personal identity. Traffickers break the
victim’s spirits leaving them with no sense of self-value or personal identity (Smith et al., 2009).
Remnants of their old life fade as a new and dysfunctional sense of family emerges. Family and
friends become part of the “square world” they leave behind as they learn to address their
trafficker as “daddy” and their co-victims and “wifey-in-law” (Lloyd, 2012). In this new family
environment, however, traffickers view their victims as property and take dramatic steps to
solidify ownership. They regularly brand or tattoo victims with their name or symbol to show
control and instill obedience (Reid & Jones, 2011; Smith et al., 2009). Traffickers, wifeys-in-
law, and the “Johns” who pay to exploit youth continually reaffirm for victims their roles in the
world as property for sale. Progressing emersion in this clandestine environment forges a new
reality for victims, often leaving them skeptical of anyone wanting to help change it.
Emergency Housing Options
Family
While reunification of trafficked youth with family might sound ideal, it may not always
be the healthiest choice. In many cases, the family home is where the history of abuse began for
CSEC victims, including their recruitment into the life (Estes & Weiner, 2001; Hanna, 2002).
Even absent physical abuse, many have no desire to return home. A common theme among
these young people prior to victimization is running away to escape a dysfunctional home life or
being thrown out of the house by a parent or guardian (Hanna, 2002; Stotts & Ramey, 2009).
While parents may be willing to accept their child back into the home, many CSEC victims are
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 29
hesitant or unwilling to return (Stotts & Ramey, 2009). Troubled youths leave home for a host
of reasons, many of which may still exist. Returning to an environment where the same
conditions exist opens the door to potential re-victimization. When family support is not an
option, social services must rely on alternative forms of emergency housing.
Group Homes
For years, the traditional group home provided housing services to a broad population of
dependent youth. Although widely utilized, group homes rarely met the needs of most CSEC
victims, as the staff historically lacked the specialized training to address the unique trauma that
this population experiences (Reid, 2010). The Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) in California
has progressively worked to improve these conditions. California legislation (Assembly Bill No.
403) sparked the evolution of group homes from their current state into short-term residential
therapeutic programs, thus improving the caliber of services offered to CSEC victims (California
Department of Social Services, 2019b). These improved facilities provide an elevated level of
care, including access to mental health services, crisis intervention, case management, and, in
some instances, programs specializing in CSEC victimization (Orange County Social Services
Agency, 2019). While group facilitates provide some barriers of protection, victims remain
vulnerable in these environments as traffickers continue to frequent these locations to recruit
girls (Reid, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). Further, the structure and supervision of the group setting
can resemble elements of captivity that trigger feelings of resentment and distrust (Smith et al.,
2009). Despite significant progress with group placements, locating less restrictive family-based
options remains a priority.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 30
Foster Care
While more in line with the desired family environment, foster care is not without its
shortcomings. Foster families often underestimate the commitment of housing CSEC victims
and lack the knowledge and skill sets to appropriately respond to their challenging behavior. A
high percentage of CSEC victims, however, spend time in the foster care system and experience
recruitment efforts while in their placement (Carpenter & Gates, 2015). Traffickers recognize
the vulnerability of youth in the foster care system and seek to exploit it. Savvy traffickers will
often use other girls to recruit potential victims within a foster home (Reid, 2016). Even other
adults within the foster care system can pose a significant risk to this vulnerable population.
Much like the abusive behavior of biological parents, foster parents also have a history of
exploiting and trafficking the children entrusted into their care (Judicial Council of California,
2017). Efforts in California, via CCR, seek to better prepare foster families, develop permanent
placement options, and provide trauma-informed support for victims (California Department of
Social Services, 2019a). Housing options for the CSEC population continue to rise; however,
the low retention rate of victims in the homes hinders program effectiveness.
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model provides a conceptual framework for this
study. Their approach to problem solving is well suited for studying stakeholder performance
within organizations. The gap analysis framework breaks down organizational performance gaps
into critical behaviors, which practitioners evaluate through the lenses of assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational barriers. Understanding the factors that contribute to and impede
stakeholder performance helps organizations make informed decisions leading to performance
gap reductions. In this study, the Clark and Estes framework will be adapted as an improvement
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 31
model to increase stakeholder performance. The following section identifies the specific
knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers influencing the stakeholder of focus in this
study.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Analyzing a stakeholder’s assumed knowledge gaps is an essential step in developing
solutions that move the stakeholders closer to their performance goal. The analysis in this
section draws attention to assumed knowledge causes that may be at the root of the performance
gap experienced by CSEC victims in light of the critical behaviors they must perform. Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) organize knowledge into four specific types: declarative factual,
declarative conceptual, declarative procedural and metacognitive. The Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis framework utilizes each of the four knowledge types.
Declarative factual knowledge influences. Declarative knowledge consists of facts or
ideas individuals can specifically state as something they know (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro,
Lovett, & Norman, 2010). Factual knowledge includes terminology and details one must be
familiar with to function and solve problems with that context or discipline (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda, 2011). For CESC victims, factual knowledge includes the rules and
expectations of the shelter where they reside. Factual knowledge in this context informs victims
of the standards they must meet to function successfully in emergency housing.
CSEC victims need to know the expectations for victims living in emergency housing.
Victims need clear expectations of their obligations while living in any housing facility in order
to meet them. Housing staff needs to communicate expectations and behavioral standards to
CSEC victims upon arrival (Smith et al., 2009). These initial communications include house
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 32
rules, program details, and the victim’s role in the process. Victims often have prior experience
with emergency shelters that may lead them to believe they know and understand facility rules.
Prior knowledge of events can help or hinder the learning process (Ambrose et al., 2010), thus
previous experiences with emergency shelters may affect how quickly a victim adapts to their
current housing placement. Verbally explaining any expectations, accompanied by a visual
posting for reference, increases the potential for individuals to know and remember what to do
(Mayer, 2011). This technique can help develop and maintain a victim’s working knowledge of
their obligations while in the facility. In addition to knowing facility expectations, victims need
to understand why they exist and how they contribute to the recovery process.
Conceptual knowledge influences. Conceptual knowledge focuses on theories and
relationships. It denotes categories, classification, models, and domain-specific structures
(Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge encompasses the organization, connection,
and interrelatedness of complex bits of information (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). CSEC
victims must understand the process of transitioning from victim to survivor. Specifically,
victims must develop an understanding of the role long-term housing plays in their journey
toward becoming a survivor.
CSEC victims need to understand the relationship between long-term housing and
survivorship. Stable housing is a critical resource for victims exiting the life. Victims need to
develop an understanding of the recovery process, including the connection between stable
housing and survivorship (Corbett, 2018; Loomba, 2017). CSEC victims experience complex
trauma and require unique care to help break the cycle of exploitation (Judicial Council of
California, 2017). Stable housing provides structure and consistency that allow victims to focus
on recovery efforts without the daily stressors of obtaining food, shelter, and staying safe (Smith
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 33
et al., 2009). Decreasing extraneous loads, such as worrying about daily necessities, enables
more effective learning (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006). Housing shelters can provide safe
environments for victims to develop essential life skills for achieving survivorship. Mastering
those critical skill sets takes time and practice (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). In addition to
creating a safe environment for personal growth, housing facilities develop healthy relationships
with victims that help erode trauma bonds and pave the way for healing to take place (Corbett,
2018; Smith et al., 2009). Even when victims understand the connection between housing and
survivorship, they often need additional guidance on how to navigate the recovery process.
Procedural knowledge influences. How to perform a task is representative of
procedural knowledge. It requires familiarity with the steps or sequences needed to complete
both simple and complex activities (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Rueda (2011) indicates
procedural knowledge includes specific or finite skills, techniques, and methodologies required
to achieve a particular task. Knowing when to apply methods and techniques is also an
important component of procedural knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010; Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). Recovering from commercial sex trafficking is a long process requiring continual victim
involvement. CSEC victims will need guidance on how best to participate in their recovery
process as well as when to apply designated methods and techniques.
Victims need to know how to participate in their recovery process. The road to recovery
for CSEC victims involves active participation. Victims can benefit from working
collaboratively with survivors and other victims who experienced similar trauma (Dye, 2018;
Loomba, 2017). While it is important for victims to exercise an independent voice in the
processes that shape their lives, they are often stronger working in groups that share common
experiences (Jahan, 2017). Survivors with similar experiences serve as credible role models for
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 34
victims to follow. Victims are more likely to adopt modeled behavior from successful survivors
with similar backgrounds and stories (Denler, Wolters, & Benson, 2009). The learning process
for victims is both vicarious and interactive (Dye, 2018; Mayer, 2011). By watching others,
victims learn to accept that resisting help and pushing others away is a normal part of the
recovery process (Corbett, 2018). Victims actively helping other victims participate in the
recovery process can be therapeutic as well (Smith et al., 2009). The use of elaboration, or
sharing out with others, is a valuable strategy for reinforcing learned material (Mayer, 2011),
including how to participate in the recovery process. Together, victims can help each other learn,
grow, and envision a life beyond their current state.
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Metacognitive knowledge consists of strategic
thinking and self-assessment within the learning process. It includes not only knowledge about
cognition but also awareness of one’s cognition and thought process (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001; Rueda, 2011). Metacognition also includes taking control of one’s learning process by
monitoring progress and taking constructive measures to improve it (Mayer, 2011).
Transitioning from victim to survivor is a lifestyle adjustment that does not happen overnight.
CSEC victims will need to cognitively reflect on their status as victims and monitor their
progression toward survivorship.
CSEC victims need to think about what it means to be a survivor. Transitioning from
victim to survivor is not always an easy adjustment. Reflecting on survivorship, however, can
help increase personal awareness and control of changes as they occur (Loomba, 2017).
Metacognition is an effective strategy for increasing self-awareness, self-regulation, and
improving learning (Mayer, 2011). For victims, self-regulation is a valuable tool that supports
their adjusting to a traditional lifestyle (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). Victims can reflect on their
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 35
life without the unhealthy behaviors they endure and assess their self-readiness to leave that
lifestyle behind them. In addition to enhancing learning, metacognitive strategies also help
promote the transfer of knowledge (Baker, 2006). Consciously thinking about what it means to
be a survivor allows victims to assess where they are at in the recovery process, reflect on the
skillsets they develop, and more effectively apply learned coping strategies to the challenges
ahead. Visualizing a life beyond victimization is an important step in achieving it. Table 2
shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.
Table 2

Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on CSEC Victim ’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal

Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature
Declarative Factual (terms, facts,
concepts)

CSEC victims need to know the
expectations for victims living in
emergency housing.
Ambrose et al., 2010; Mayer, 2011; Smith et al., 2009
Declarative Conceptual (categories,
process models, principles, relationships)

CSEC victims need to understand the
relationship between long-term housing
and survivorship.
Corbett, 2018; Judicial Council of California, 2017;
Kirschner et al., 2006; Loomba, 2017; Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006; Smith et al., 2009
Procedural

Victims need to know how to participate
in their recovery process.
Corbett, 2018; Denler et al., 2009; Dye, 2018; Jahan,
2017; Loomba, 2017; Mayer, 2011 Smith et al., 2009
Metacognitive

CSEC victims need to think about what it
means to be a survivor.
Baker, 2006; Loomba, 2017; Mayer, 2011; Prochaska, &
Velicer, 1997

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 36
Motivation
General theory. Motivation is an internal process that involves initiating and
maintaining goal-directed behavior (Mayer, 2011; Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014). Ryan and
Deci (2000) describe motivation as “being moved to do something” and add that it varies in level
and orientation. Clark and Estes (2008) draws attention to three commonly accepted motivational
indices: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice occurs when an individual
progresses from intention to the active pursuit of a goal or task. Persistence refers to the
commitment to press forward despite competing distractions while mental effort is the measure
of cognitive investment applied to goal achievement. Mental effort requires one to seek out and
apply new knowledge to solve novel problems. The following section explores factors that
might contribute to or impede CSEC victims’ motivation to remain in emergency housing.
CSEC victim specific factors. Exiting the world of sex trafficking is not easy,
particularly when a strong trauma bond exists between the trafficker and victim. Victims often
resist help from credible sources when attempting to exit the life, resulting in one failed attempt
after another. They rely on their knowledge and experience rather than investing the mental
effort to develop better strategies. Resolving significant challenges requires moving beyond
experience and investing sufficient mental effort to generate new learning and knowledge (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
CSEC victims need to value exiting the world of sexual exploitation. Value in obtaining
a better life can drive their choice to pursue it. Continuing down the road to recovery will
require confidence that they can successfully adapt to a traditional lifestyle. The self-efficacy
they develop helps them persist through unforeseen challenges. The progress victims experience
creates positive feeling about the benefits emergency housing options provide. Attributing
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 37
success to their efforts bolsters motivation and allows victims to generate healthy goals to sustain
their efforts and commitment to achieving survivorship.
Value. Value is subjective as not everyone holds the quality or attainment of each task in
the same regard. These subjective task values, however, categorized into four distinct areas:
attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost value (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Of
particular importance to CSEC victims, are the influences of utility and cost value. Utility value
reflects the potential benefits or usefulness of completing a task while cost value recognizes what
an individual must give to achieve it (Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda, 2009). In assessing their
options, CSEC victims need to place greater value on escaping a life of exploitation than the cost
and challenge of the journey.
CSEC victims need to value exiting the life. For many CSEC victims, the perceived
benefits of attempting to exit the life do not outweigh the cost of what they leave behind. Many
victims worry about finding legitimate employment, housing that will accept them, and the fate
of other victims they leave behind (Corbett, 2018). Discussing the importance or utility of an
action can help develop positive value (Eccles, 2006). When the value of a task increases,
motivation to achieve it also rises (Eccles, 2006; Wigfield et al., 2009). Seeing the utility value
of living a healthy and violence-free life can help develop foundational motivation for change.
Many victims also have children of their own who become driving forces for wanting to exit the
life (Corbett, 2018). Regardless of the catalyst for developing it, establishing value for exiting
the life is an important step in choosing to start the process. In addition to wanting a better life,
however, victims need to believe they can successfully make the transition.
Self-efficacy. An individual’s perception of their ability to exercise control over their life
influences the choices they make, how long they persist at goals, and the amount of mental effort
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 38
they are willing to invest (Bandura, 1991). Belief in one’s ability has a powerful effect on
confidence and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is essential that CSEC victims not only
want to exit the life of sexual exploitation but also believe they are capable of making the
transition to a traditional lifestyle.
CESC victims need to feel confident they can adapt to a traditional lifestyle. Feelings
of confidence are directly related to CSEC victims’ level of persistence in adjusting to a normal
lifestyle. Self-efficacy is situation-specific confidence to cope or be successful (Prochaska &
Velicer, 1997). CSEC victims may appear confident in many areas but lack the self-efficacy not
to relapse into unhealthy behaviors. The expectancy one has to succeed and the task value serve
as strong predictors of individual choice, persistence, and performance to complete an objective
(Wigfield et al., 2009). Confidence levels vary during any skill development; however, as
mastery increases so does self-efficacy (Usher & Pajares, 2008). A rise in self-efficacy, or
expectancy for success, positively influences motivation (Pajares, 2006). Motivated victims who
believe in their ability to adapt to a normal lifestyle are more likely to persist through the
challenges and setbacks that occur. Feeling confident and motivated about the decision to
integrate into society can positively influence how victims feel about their housing environment.
Mood. Mood is a low-intensity emotion that an individual experiences that influences
how they respond to life’s events (Pajares, 2006; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002). Angry or
depressive moods tend to connect people to negative experiences in their past and impede their
ability to focus on future goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). CSEC victims endure a substantial
amount of trauma during their exploitation and are likely to harbor a wide range of negative
emotions. Victims who cultivate positive emotions about themselves and their environment are
more likely to develop favorable responses to those offering assistance.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 39
CSEC victims need to feel positive about the benefits of remaining in emergency
housing. A positive attitude about the benefits of emergency housing can improve victims’
success. Sex trafficking survivors report that cultivating a positive attitude helps with the
recovery process (Corbett, 2018). Mood is a low-intensity emotion that influences cognition
(Pekrun et al., 2002). Positive emotions can increase creative thinking, problem solving,
socialization, and resilience (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009; Pekrun, et al., 2002). Thus, CSEC
victims with positive feelings about housing tend to be more adaptable to the challenges of their
new environment. Positive emotions also encourage engagement and participation (Cohn &
Fredrickson, 2009). Housing facilities generally offer a variety of programs and services, none
of which reach their effective potential without participation. In addition to developing essential
life skills, actively participating in facility programs can promote a sense of achievement and
agency.
Attribution. Attributions represent the reasons that individuals assign to success or
failure at a given task and reflect the amount of control they perceive to have over future
outcomes (Rueda, 2011). Victims need to understand that they have control over their lives and
that their destinies are not fixed. A victim’s capacity to transition back to a traditional lifestyle is
dependent largely on personal effort rather than on skills or ability.
Victims need to attribute successfully exiting the life to their own efforts. Victims who
know they have the power to change their lives are more successful at achieving it. It is
important, however, for victims to understand that conditions in their lives are not fixed and that
they have personal agency to improve their situation (Smith et al., 2009). Individuals who
attribute failure to internal factors, such as ability, often experience shame and humiliation when
they are unsuccessful (Graham & Williams, 2009). Individuals who view success or failure as a
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 40
matter of effort often experience increased motivation to achieve and may feel guilty when their
lack of effort results in failure (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Graham & Williams, 2009).
Providing opportunities for victims to make their own decisions, coupled with feedback, helps
promote attribution to effort (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Smith et al., 2009). Knowing that a
successful transition to a normal lifestyle is largely a matter of choice and effort can help
motivate victims to continue working toward it.
Goal orientation. Goal orientation can be mastery or performance-based. As Maehr and
Zusho (2009) point out, the benefits of a mastery-oriented learning environment generally
exceed a performance-based approach. CSEC victims will often stumble along the road to
recovery and are not successful at exiting their exploitative lifestyle on their first attempt. Their
goals should focus on individual improvement and progression rather than achieving specific
milestones within arbitrarily established timeframes.
Victims need to persist at achieving survivorship. Achieving survivorship is a long
process requiring continual effort and commitment. Even with support, exiting the life is not an
easy task, and it is natural for girls to question their commitment to doing so (Lloyd, 2012).
CSEC victims frequently run away and even revert back to a life of exploitation several times
before exiting the life for good (Judicial Council of California, 2017). Adopting a mastery
approach to goals, however, allows individuals to focus on self-improvement rather than
achievement, resulting in a greater level of persistence (Young & Anderman, 2009). A mastery
approach to survivorship recognizes victims are a work in progress and does not measure success
with every shortcoming. Mastery is a process that occurs over time (Senge, 1990). Victims may
struggle for months or even years to master survivorship, but they should never give up (Lloyd,
2012; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). Even the most tenacious victim, however, will need support
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 41
along their journey to becoming a survivor. Table 3 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the
related literature.
Table 3

Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on CSEC Victim ’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal

Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Value
CSEC victims need to value exiting the
life.

Corbett, 2018; Eccles, 2006; Wigfield et al., 2009
Self-Efficacy
CESC victims need to feel confident they
can adapt to a traditional lifestyle.

Pajares, 2006; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Usher
& Pajares, 2008; Wigfield et al., 2009
Mood
CSEC victims need to feel positive about
the benefits of remaining in emergency
housing.

Corbett, 2018; Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009;
Pekrun et al., 2002
Attribution:
Victims need attribute successfully
exiting the life to their own efforts

Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Graham &
Williams, 2009; Smith et al., 2009
Goal Orientation:
Victims need to persist at achieving
survivorship

Judicial Council of California, 2017; Lloyd,
2012; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Senge, 1990;
Young & Anderman, 2009

Organization
Organizational factors are frequent contributors to performance gaps. Critical factors
include maintaining adequate resources, relevant policies and procedures, and cultural models
and settings (Clark & Estes, 2008). Policies and procedures designed to support an
organization’s goals are not always compatible with its culture. Often, solutions to one problem,
even when well-intended, create unforeseen challenges elsewhere in the organization (Senge,
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 42
1990). To minimize this effect, organizations should not assume they know and understand how
others feel about performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is, therefore, important for shelters
to include the victim’s perspective when assessing organizational culture, resources, policies, and
procedures.
Resources. Resources encompass a wide range of material, supplies and environment
needs that contribute to achieving a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). CSEC victims often arrive at the
shelter with substantial needs beyond that of housing. Victims have a host of physical and
psychological needs that require continual monitoring and attention. In addition to material
resources, CSEC victims need access to counselors and professional staff trained to engage in
their unique area of victimization.
CSEC victims need advocates who understand the value of a trauma-informed
approach to providing services. Victims need advocates who understand the uniqueness of their
victimization and the services they require. It is important that the resources provided align with
the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Foundationally, CSEC victims need many of the same
resources other trauma victims require such as food, clothing, and shelter (Polaris Project, 2017).
The continuum of care required by victims extends beyond their physical needs and often
includes psychological support, medical attention, job training, legal assistance, and advocacy
(Judicial Council of California, 2017). Victims need advocates who understand their trauma-
based behaviors and refuse to give up on them when pushed away (Corbett, 2018). It is common
for CSEC victims to test boundaries, act irrational, or refuse help. Advocates who truly
understand the CSEC population will reassure victims that their reactions are normal considering
the circumstances (Lloyd, 2012). In addition to well-trained advocates, CSEC victims also need
continued support from the housing facility to promote a healthy recovery.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 43
Policies and procedures. Policies and procedures help clarify expectations and organize
action items for individuals. To be effective, policies and procedures must align with and
support the goals of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Emergency shelters that house
CSEC victims, and their law enforcement partners, need adaptive policies and procedures that
support the organizational goal of maximizing the retention rate for the victims they serve.
CSEC victims need police policies and procedures adapted to their unique form of
victimization. For law enforcement, interacting with CSEC victims requires a different approach
than working with other victims. Unlike traditional victims of crime, CSEC may react adversely
to officers and resent their presence (Smith et al., 2009). Fear and mistrust are common barriers
that restrict cooperation and the willingness of CSEC to disclose critical information to law
enforcement (Hepburn & Simon, 2010; Mehlman-Orozco, 2015). Outdated or misaligned
procedures can lead to the mislabeling of CSEC victims as criminals, ultimately reducing the
services and options afforded to children identified as victims (Finklea, 2014; Reid, 2010). It is
essential that law enforcement apply innovative techniques, such as a trauma-informed approach,
when interviewing victims of complex abuses like commercial sex trafficking (President’s
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, 2014). Adopting
relevant approaches to working with CSEC allows law enforcement to safeguard both the
victims and the integrity of their investigations (Farrell & Pfeffer, 2014). Adhering to policies
and procedures that support positive police encounters helps set the stage for other organizations
that serve the CSEC population.
CSEC victims need shelter policies adapted to their unique form of victimization.
CSEC victims often struggle to adapt to life within a shelter. As a result, running away from
shelters is a common practice (Judicial Council of California, 2017). An organization’s policies
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 44
and procedures must align with its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008), which, for shelters, is the
retention and healthy recovery of victims. Shelters should adopt intake procedures that are
sensitive to the physical, psychological, and emotional needs of victims (Smith et al., 2009).
Policies and procedures should be restrictive enough to discourage victims from leaving without
precluding runaway victims from returning to the shelter when they are ready (Judicial Council
of California, 2017). A best practice for developing policies and procedures that are responsive
to CSEC victim’s needs is to involve survivors in the process (President’s Interagency Task
Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, 2014). Victims who feel supported and
accepted in their shelters are more likely to stay.
Culture. Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) framework highlights two key concepts to
help understand the way culture affects organizations, cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural models are a shared sense of norms about the way things should be done. They
encompass values, perceptions, and beliefs that develop over time and are often invisible to
members of the organization. Interconnected with cultural models is the concept of cultural
settings. Cultural settings are visible manifestations of cultural models taking place in that
environment. CSEC victims need shelters that embody a culture of acceptance, participation,
and empowerment to promote a steady progression toward survivorship.
CSEC victims need to be connected to a culture focused on victim empowerment.
Trafficked girls need shelters to embrace them as victims, not criminals. The policies,
procedures, and programs of an organization must align with its goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Providing victims with a voice in the recovery process increases the quality of care offered by a
facility (Dye, 2018; Todres, 2010), leading to greater goal alignment. Victims need
opportunities to interact and share with other victims (Dye, 2018). The experience of victims
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 45
helping each other through times of crisis aids in the recovery process (Smith et al., 2009).
Survivors commonly report that they knew someone else who successfully exited the before
them (Corbett, 2018). Interaction with other survivors connects victims with credible models to
help visualize success and foster a sense of individual empowerment. Table 4 shows the
stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.
Table 4

Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on CSEC Victim ’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal

Assumed Organization Influences Research Literature
Author, Year; Author, Year.
Resources (time; finances; people)
CSEC victims need advocates who
understand the value of a trauma-
informed approach to providing
services.
Judicial Council of California, 2017; Polaris Project,
2017; Lloyd, 2012; Corbett, 2018; Clark & Estes, 2008
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
CSEC victims need police policies
and procedures adapted to their
unique form of victimization.

Farrell et al., 2015; Finklea, 2014; Hepburn & Simon,
2010; Mehlman-Orozco, 2015; Persons, 2014;
President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Smith et al., 2009; Reid, 2010;
CSEC victims need shelter policies
adapted to their unique form of
victimization.
Clark & Estes, 2008; Judicial Council of California,
2017; President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons, 2014; Smith et al.,
2009
Culture
CSEC victims need to be connected
to a culture focused on victim
empowerment.
Clark & Estes, 2008; Corbett, 2018; Dye, 2018; Smith
et al., 2009; Todres, 2010

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 46
Chapter Two explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related
to the retention of CSEC victims in emergency housing facilities. The influences identified in
this chapter will serve as a foundation for the data collected through methods outlined in Chapter
Three.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the reasons the
RCSSA struggles with the retention of CESC victims in its shelters. The process explored
potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that hinder the organization from
achieving its organizational goal. While a complete and comprehensive gap analysis would
incorporate all stakeholders, for practical purposes, this study focuses on one stakeholder: the
victims. The results serve to inform the organization of areas that need attention to improve
retention rates. The analysis began by creating a list of possible or assumed influences that were
systematically examined to focus on actual or validated causes leading to the performance gap.
The following questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
CSEC victims remaining in emergency shelters until properly placed in long-term
housing?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was implemented as the conceptual framework. The
methodology of the study was built on this framework, which is used as a priori categories to
record results. Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that interfere with
RCSSA’s goal achievement were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature.
These influences were assessed by using interviews, a focus group, observations, a literature
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 48
review, and content analysis. Research-based solutions were evaluated as presented in Chapter
Five.
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was adapted in this study to
accommodate the needs of the RCSSA. The study used the improvement model to conduct a gap
analysis of the organization’s retention rate of CSEC victims in emergency housing. The focus
of the study was to validate the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that
influence victims’ decision to remain in emergency housing. Research-based solutions to the gap
analysis findings were recommended to help close the retention gap experienced in the County of
Riverview. The steps of the gap analysis process are shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Gap analysis process adapted from Clark and Estes (2008).

Assessment of Performance Influences
Chapter Two presented assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers
contributing to RCSSA’s difficulties retaining CSEC victims in emergency housing. Based on
the application of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, the current performance gap for retention
is at 100%. Chapter Three reflects how interviews, a focus group, and observations helped
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 49
assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences the of CSEC victims effects
goal achievement.
Knowledge Assessment
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) organize knowledge into four distinct categories:
declarative factual, declarative conceptual, declarative procedural and metacognitive. Using the
literature as a guide, this chapter assessed each of the knowledge influences established in
Chapter Two. Table 5 provides an overview of the assessment methods used to evaluate the
knowledge influences.
Declarative factual knowledge. CSEC victims need to know the details of their recovery
program, including what is expected of them while living in emergency housing (Smith et al.,
2009). Details such as house rules and behavior expectations are reflective of declarative factual
knowledge. Declarative knowledge, according to Ambrose et al. (2010), encompasses
information that one can state or declare. Effective inquiry methods for assessing participants’
declarative factual knowledge requires them to demonstrate the specific knowledge (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). CSEC survivors completed individual interviews requiring them to
demonstrate their knowledge of emergency housing expectations. A focus group of CSEC
survivors also discussed their knowledge of housing expectations for CSEC victims.
Observations during a site visit of the Riverview County facility augmented in the assessment of
declarative factual knowledge.
Declarative conceptual knowledge. Victims need to recognize the connection between
long-term housing and survivorship. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) advocate the use of
inquiry methods requiring participants to demonstrate their knowledge of relationships that exist
between categories, principles or structures. To extract this knowledge, the researcher asked
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 50
CSEC survivors open-ended questions during individual interviews to highlight their
understanding of the housing-survivor relationship. Similarly, a focus group of survivors was
asked to discuss the housing-survivor relationship and to provide examples of how housing
impacts victims who are trying to exit the life.
Declarative procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge requires an individual
awareness of the skills, techniques, methods and steps required to complete a task. To assess
procedural knowledge, researchers should use inquiry methods that require participants to show
they know how to apply knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). To assess procedural knowledge, this
study engaged CSEC survivors during individual interviews and with the aid of a focus group.
Participants in both groups were asked open-ended questions that encouraged them to articulate
the process of how victims can participate in their own recovery.
Declarative metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge requires the ability to
reflect on one’s approach to a task and make the necessary adjustments to knowledge and skill
sets to maximize progress. To assess metacognitive knowledge, Krathwohl (2002) recommends
an open-ended inquiry approach that requires participants to demonstrate metacognitive analysis
at multiple phases of a task. This study used individual interviews and a focus group to ask
participants open-ended questions requiring them to reflect on how they self-evaluated their state
of survivorship along their journey. Participants were asked to contemplate what it means to be
a CSEC survivor and to reflect on how their life will be different. The study also used site
observation to seek out evidence of metacognitive knowledge on the part of victims.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 51
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed
Knowledge
Influences
Interview Items Focus Group Items Observations
Declarative Factual
(terms, facts,
concepts)

CSEC victims need
to know the
expectations for
victims living in
emergency housing.
Did you know what the
facility expectations
were for you when you
entered housing?
Probes: How did you
know? Who told you?
From prior
experiences? Were the
house rules clear? How
did the rules make you
feel?
Did you know what the
facility expectations
were for you when you
entered housing?
Probes: How did you
know? Who told you?
From prior
experiences? Were the
house rules clear? How
did the rules make you
feel?
Manuals; posters,
house rules,
consequences, job
aids
Declarative
Conceptual
(categories, process
models, principles,
relationships)

CSEC victims need
to understand the
relationship between
long-term housing
and survivorship.
When you were being
placed in housing for
the first time, how did
you anticipate that
housing would affect
your quality of life?
Probe: How do you
define quality of life?
What about other times
in housing?
When you were being
placed in housing for
the first time, how did
you anticipate that
housing would affect
your quality of life?
Probe: How do you
define quality of life?
What about other times
in housing?
Observations not
conducted/ sought
out for conceptual
knowledge

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 52
Table 5, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influences
Interview Items Focus Group Items Observations
Procedural

Victims need to
know how to
participate in their
recovery process.
When you were first
contacted by
authorities as a victim,
did you know how to
communicate your
needs with them?
Probes: Were there
risks/barriers to asking
for help? With
police/facility staff?
Fears?

Looking back, what are
some ways CSEC can
participate in their own
recovery process?
Probes: What processes
helped you grow
stronger? Did housing
support those processes
for you? How?
When you were first
contacted by
authorities as a victim,
did you know how to
communicate your
needs with them?
Probes: Were there
risks/barriers to asking
for help? With
police/facility staff?
Fears?

Looking back, what
are some ways CSEC
can participate in their
own recovery
process?
Probes: What
processes helped you
grow stronger? Did
housing support those
processes for you?
How?
Activity boards/
charts illustrating
steps to achieve
and progress;
names and
notations on the
charts indicating
participation and
progress

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 53
Table 5, continued
Assumed
Knowledge
Influences
Interview Items Focus Group Items Observations
Metacognitive

CSEC victims need
to think about what
it means to be a
survivor.
What does it mean to
you to be a survivor?
Probes: How do you
know when you have
achieved it? How are
you different?

Prior to entering
emergency housing,
did you reflect on what
it would be like to be
free?
Probes: Were there
consequences to being
free? Did you worry
about friends, family,
money, primp? Did
those concerns change
over time with
subsequent stays in
housing?
What does it mean to
you to be a survivor?
Probes: How do you
know when you have
achieved it? How are
you different?

Prior to entering
emergency housing,
did you reflect on
what it would be like
to be free?
Probes: Were there
consequences to being
free? Did you worry
about friends, family,
money, primp? Did
those concerns change
over time with
subsequent stays in
housing?
Personal
expression, cards,
notes, poems,
reflections, pictures

Motivation Assessment
Chapter Two identified and discussed assumed motivational indices affecting the
retention rate of CSEC victims in emergency housing. The motivational indices included value,
self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and goal orientation. The following section discusses the
procedures for assessing those motivational indices, using the literature to guide the process.
Table 6 provides an overview of the assessment methods, including sample interview questions.
Value. Personal value affects motivation and performance. Utility value, for example, is
the perceived usefulness gained from engaging in a task (Wigfield et al., 2009). When the
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 54
perceived benefit is higher, motivation tends to follow. CSEC victims need to value exiting the
life to choose to take action toward it. Victims also need to value the relationship between
emergency housing services and survivorship to increase their commitment to staying.
Clark and Estes (2008) recognize open-ended questions as a viable means of helping to
validate the participants’ responses. During individual interviews and a focus group, CSEC
survivors were asked open-ended questions regarding their value in exiting the life and the role
housing plays in achieving survivorship.
Self-efficacy. Motivation increases when a positive expectation for success exists
(Pajares, 2006). To assess CSEC victims’ confidence in their ability to succeed, this study
utilized both interviews and a focus group. Clark and Estes (2008) advocates for the use of
questions that flesh out individuals’ confidence to assess self-efficacy. Using domain-specific
activities are essential for developing sound efficacy assessments (Bandura, 2006). In the
context of this study, self-efficacy refers to CSEC victims’ confidence in their ability to adapt to
a traditional lifestyle after years of exploitation. This study used interviews and a focus group to
gage victims’ confidence level in sustaining a normal lifestyle upon entering housing. These
techniques further helped explore specific skills, activities, and events that both reinforce and
challenge victims’ confidence levels as they progress toward survivorship.
Mood. Mood is a low-intensity emotion that an individual experiences that influences
how they respond to life’s events (Pajares, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2002). Angry or depressive
moods tend to connect people to negative experiences in their past and impede their ability to
focus on future goals while positive moods increase creativity, resilience, and socialization
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009). As supported by Clark and Estes (2008), this
study used open-ended questions during interviews and a focus group to ask survivors about their
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 55
emotional perspective of housing from a victim’s standpoint and the influence it has on their
recovery.
Attribution. Attributions encompass the reasons that individuals assign to success or
failure at a given task and reflect the amount of control they perceive to have over future
outcomes (Rueda, 2011). Victims need to recognize the control they have over reshaping their
lives and making a permanent transition to survivorship. Believing one can influence success
through personal effort increases persistence and the desire to work harder at achieving a task
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Victims need to attribute successfully exiting the
life to their own efforts. This study used interviews and a focus group, as supported by Clark
and Estes (2008), to ask open-ended questions of the participants regarding the reasons they
succeeded or failed as they struggled to exit the life.
Goal orientation. While goal orientation can be mastery- or performance-based, Maehr
and Zusho (2009) stress the benefits of a mastery-oriented learning environment. A mastery
approach to survivorship recognizes victims are a work in progress and does not measure success
with every shortcoming. Girls often fail several times before achieving permanent survivorship.
Giving up and running away is common for CSEC victims; however, they should never stop
trying (Judicial Council of California, 2017; Lloyd, 2012). This study used interviews and a
focus group, as supported by Clark and Estes (2008), to ask open-ended questions of the
participants regarding their approach to addressing barriers that stand in the way of successfully
exiting the life and maintaining a state of survivorship.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 56
Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Survey Items Interviews Items
Value
CSEC victims need to
value exiting the life.

What things did you value when you
were first contacted as a CSEC
victim?
Probes: Did you value exiting the
life? Did your values change with
subsequent visits to housing? How?
Who/what influenced a change in
values?
What things did you value when you
were first contacted as a CSEC
victim?
Probes: Did you value exiting the
life? Did your values change with
subsequent visits to housing? How?
Who/what influenced a change in
values?
Self-Efficacy
CESC victims need to
feel confident they
can adapt to a
traditional lifestyle.
Describe your confidence level at
being able to adapt to a traditional
lifestyle when you entered housing?
Probe: What impacted your
confidence? How was your
confidence different over time?
Describe your confidence level at
being able to adapt to a traditional
lifestyle when you entered housing?
Probe: What impacted your
confidence? How was your
confidence different over time?
Mood
CSEC victims need to
feel positive about the
benefits of remaining
in emergency
housing.
Describe how you felt about the idea
of staying in an emergency shelter?
(first time if multiply stays)
Probes: Can you name the strongest
emotion you felt? Did your feelings
ever change, why? What about the
time you decided to stay? What, if
anything, contributed to a change in
mindset?
Describe how you felt about the idea
of staying in an emergency shelter?
(first time if multiply stays)
Probes: Can you name the strongest
emotion you felt? Did your feelings
ever change, why? What about the
time you decided to stay? What, if
anything, contributed to a change in
mindset?
Attribution

Victims need attribute
successfully exiting
the life to their own
efforts
What do you believe are the main
factors contributing to your success
as a survivor?
Probe: (If multiple attempts) What
are the reasons you feel that kept you
from successfully exiting the life in
the past?
What do you believe are the main
factors contributing to your success
as a survivor?
Probe: (If multiple attempts) What
are the reasons you feel that kept you
from successfully exiting the life in
the past?
Goal Orientation
Victims need to
persist at achieving
survivorship
When you were first contacted as a
CSEC victim, how did you feel about
your ability to persist through the
challenges of exiting the life?
Probes: Overwhelmed? Determined?
Didn’t want to exit?
When you were first contacted as a
CSEC victim, how did you feel about
your ability to persist through the
challenges of exiting the life?
Probes: Overwhelmed? Determined?
Didn’t want to exit?

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 57
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
Adequate resources, relevant policies and procedures, and cultural models and settings
are organizational factors that routinely contribute to performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Using the literature as a guide, the assumed influences identified in Chapter Two were assessed.
Table 7 provides an overview of the methods of assessment along with relevant interviews, focus
group, and observation items.
Resources. The term “resources” encompass a wide range of materials, supplies and
environmental needs (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the context of CSEC victims trying to exit the
life, resource needs are both physical and psychological. The need for advocates who understand
these victim’s unique form of trauma and related behavior is just as critical to achieving
survivorship as food, clothing, and shelter (Corbett, 2018; Lloyd, 2012). Clark and Estes (2008)
recognize the importance of gathering views of those charged with closing the performance gap.
With that same mindset, this study interviewed CSEC survivors to help gauge the access they
had to trauma-informed advocates. The study further validated those responses with a focus
group and facility observations.
Policies, processes, and procedures. Goal attainment within an organization often relies
on a complex set of processes interacting together, supported by properly aligned policies and
procedures. Assessing these areas can help identify organizational barriers contributing to the
achievement gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the context of CSEC victims, shelters need adaptive
policies, processes, and procedures that support victim retention and recovery. Organizations
need an approach that mitigates the desire and ability for victims to leave while maintaining a
posture of acceptance for victims when they return (Judicial Council of California, 2017). This
study interviewed CSEC survivors to assess how factors of the facility, as well as external
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 58
stakeholders such as law enforcement, conform to the needs of victims. The study validated
interview responses through the use of a focus group and facility observations.
Culture. Cultural models encompass values, perceptions, and beliefs that develop over
time and are often invisible to members of the organization while cultural settings are visible
manifestations of cultural models taking place in that environment (Gallimore and Goldenberg,
2001). Culture needs to align with organizational goals for stakeholders to be successful (Clark
& Estes, 2008). CSEC victims need shelters that embody a culture of acceptance, participation
and empowerment to promote survivorship. Establishing a voice in their own recovery process,
while still supported by those who have successfully exited the life, is a common theme among
survivors (Corbett, 2018; Todres, 2010). Clark and Estes (2008) support the use of interviews to
access organizational culture. This study interviewed CSEC survivors to gauge how the culture
of the organization influenced the level of empowerment experienced by those in emergency
housing. The study validated results with a focus group and facility observations.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 59
Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed
Organization
Influences
Interview Items Focus Group Items Observations
Resources (time;
finances; people)
CSEC victims need
advocates who
understand the value
of a trauma-
informed approach
to providing
services.
Describe your access to
victim advocates while in
emergency housing.
Probes: In what ways did
the advocates assist you?
How, if at all, did the
advocates influence your
decision to remain in
emergency housing? What
else, if anything, could
they have done to
encourage you to stay?
Describe your access to
victim advocates while in
emergency housing.
Probes: In what ways did
the advocates assist you?
How, if at all, did the
advocates influence your
decision to remain in
emergency housing? What
else, if anything, could
they have done to
encourage you to stay?
Presence of
advocates, list of
services available,
job aids, food /
clothing /shelter
Policies, Processes,
& Procedures
CSEC needs law
enforcement policies
and procedures that
are adaptive to their
unique form of
victimization.
Describe your experience
when you were contacted
by law enforcement (prior
to being placed in
housing).
Probes: Where/what was
the setting? How were you
contacted/ detained?

How did your contact with
law enforcement make you
feel?
Probe: How did the
experience influence your
mindset, if at all, about
going to a county shelter?
Describe your experience
when you were contacted
by law enforcement (prior
to being placed in
housing).
Probes: Where/what was
the setting? How were you
contacted/ detained?

How did your contact with
law enforcement make you
feel?
Probe: How did the
experience influence your
mindset, if at all, about
going to a county shelter?
Posting of rules
and expectations
for CSEC in
facility / intake/
processing /
security
CSEC victims need
shelter policies
adapted to their
unique form of
victimization.
Describe your experiences
with the housing staff.
In what ways did they
assist you? Did you feel
supported? What else, if
anything, could they have
done to encourage you to
stay
Describe your experiences
with the housing staff.

In what ways did they
assist you? Did you feel
supported? What else, if
anything, could they have
done to encourage you to
stay?

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 60
Table 7, continued
Assumed
Organization
Influences
Interview Items Focus Group Items Observations
Culture
CSEC victims need
to be connected to a
culture focused on
victim
empowerment.
What other cultural
influences impacted your
decision to stay in county
housing?
Probes: What positive or
negative cultural
influences did you
experience?
Welcoming/homelike
environment or an
institutional feel?
What other cultural
influences impacted your
decision to stay in county
housing?
Probes: What positive or
negative cultural influences
did you experience?
Welcoming/homelike
environment or an
institutional feel?
Observe facility,
program activities /
opportunities for
choice, autonomy,
personal
expression
CSEC need a culture
that supports sharing
and learning with
other victims.
Did you share your story
with other victims? If so,
how did sharing impact
you?

How did having other
victims with similar
experiences (CSEC) in the
facility influence your
decision to stay?
Probes: Support and
understanding?
Mentors/models? Pressure
for recruitment.
Did you share your story
with other victims? If so,
how did sharing impact
you?

How did having other
victims with similar
experiences (CSEC) in the
facility influence your
decision to stay?
Probes: Support and
understanding?
Mentors/models? Pressure
for recruitment.
Observe facility,
living area,
interview room,
common areas

Presence of
advocates /
mentors/counselors

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this paper was CSEC victims themselves. CSEC
victims hold a unique perspective on the topic of victim retention and organizational practices
that influence their behavior. The population for this study included trafficked females who
experienced commercial sexual exploitation for a minimum of three years and resided in
emergency housing on at least one occasion prior to exiting the life. While all participants
involved in the study were adults, each had relevant experiences as a minor to draw upon during
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 61
individual interviews and the focus groups. Their perspectives, both as victims and shelter
residents, offered valuable insight to closing the achievement gap of shelter retention rates.
Sampling
The study used purposeful sampling for selecting participants. Purposeful sampling is
appropriate when the goal of the researcher is to gain deeper understanding and insight about the
study’s population (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All participants were human trafficking victims
in Southern California and were adults at the time of the study. Each participant had a minimum
of three years of experience as a commercial sexually exploited minor and had spent time in
emergency housing on at least one occasion. Because this population is difficult to connect with
and properly vet, the study used the Riverview County Human Trafficking Task Force and
Waymakers, a non-profit advocacy resource, to help identify prospective candidates for this
study. The identity and background of each candidate remained confidential and was not
released to the researcher. The sample of participants was also one of convenience, chosen in
part due to their easy access and availability (Maxwell, 2013). While selection based on
convenience alone invites credibility concerns, Weiss (1994) points out that convenience
sampling may be the only viable choice when studying a difficult population to access.
Recruitment
The Riverview County’s Human Trafficking Task Force and Waymakers assisted with
the recruitment and selection of 12 interview participants and five focus group members for this
study. Both organizations had a clear understanding of the study’s purpose, participant criteria,
and university restrictions. Collectively, these organizations served as gatekeepers for approving
CSEC survivor participation. Waymakers helped identify viable CSEC survivors who fit the
participant requirements and ensured that they were in a healthy and productive mental state.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 62
Waymakers and task force members verified potential participants had no pending legal cases
related to human trafficking or conflicts of interest. Parameters for this study required that the
identity of all participants remain anonymous. The researcher did not have access to
participants’ personal information and did not make any individual attempts at recruitment.
Advocates from the listed organizations reached out to CSEC survivors directly via phone and
email to solicit participation. The advocates provided potential participants with a copy of the
study’s informed consent form (Appendix A) to help educate them on the study’s purpose,
protocols, risks, rewards, and expectations. The study offered prospective participants a $10.00
gift card as compensation for their time. Additionally, Waymakers offered to provide
transportation to the interviews for participants as needed. Advocates set up interview and focus
group appointments for interested candidates and notified the researcher of dates, times, and
location.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The data sources for this study consisted of interviews, a focus group, and observations.
The influences and methods of assessment listed above (Tables 5, 6, and 7) guided the interview
and focus group design. Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval, CSEC survivors were solicited to participate in individual interviews and a focus
group. The researcher also conducted observations of the housing facility, environment, and
relevant materials.
Interview Protocol Design and Data Collection
The interviews were designed to measure knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences as established based on the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. The interview
questions emerged from the assumed influences identified by the literature and presented in
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 63
Tables 5, 6, and 7. Appendix B lists the questions that guided the interviews. The interview
questions consisted of six items pertaining to the knowledge influences, five items related to
motivation, and seven addressing organizational factors. The researcher conducted 12 individual
interviews with CSEC survivors. The participant count allowed the researcher to reach
saturation, a point where no new insights emerged (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The interviews began with an overview of the process, explanation of confidentiality, and
an admonishment of intent to record. The identity of each participant remained anonymous. All
interviews were face to face and occurred in a Riverview County office setting or alternative
office designated by Waymakers. A Waymakers advocate was available for any participant who
desired support during the interview, but each of the participants chose to proceed without an
advocate present. The study used semi-structured interviews, as this approach affords more
flexibility and the opportunity to flesh out richer responses from participants (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Semi-structured interviews leverage probes to uncover more than what participants
initially offer in response (Maxwell, 2013). Probing helped reveal feelings and behaviors
participants did not know they had or were reluctant to verbalize without coaxing. Interviews
lasted approximately 45 minutes each.
Relying on note taking alone to document interviews allows content to be lost (Weiss,
1994). Recording the interviews reduced the likelihood of neglecting relevant body language of
the participants while focusing on detailed notes. This study used REV.COM to audio record
and transcribe all interviews. The use of recording devices, however, did not diminish the value
of note taking. Taking notes during interviews can generate new questions or redirect focus to
something covered previously (Patton, 2002). All recordings, notes, and transcriptions
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 64
associated with the interviews were locked in a secure location and with password protection
when applicable.
Focus Group Design and Data Collection
The researcher invited five CSEC survivors to participate in a focus group to help
triangulate the responses provided during the individual interviews. Waymaker advocates
recruited the focus group participants and kept their identities anonymous. Five respondents
committed to participate in the focus group, although only four were present on the day of the
event. Advocates were on site during the focus group session; however, the participants chose to
proceed without their assistance. The focus group protocol consisted of six items pertaining to
knowledge influences, five related to motivation, and seven addressing organizational factors.
Appendix B contains the study’s focus group protocol form and questions.
The focus group session began with introductions followed by an overview of the
process and ground rules for a healthy discussion. Clark and Estes (2008) stresses the need for
interviewers to promote trustworthiness with the group by candidly sharing the purpose of the
study, including how it will be used and reported. The interviewer provided the focus group with
a copy of the study’s informed consent form, reaffirmed participant confidentiality, and sought
permission from the group to audio record the session. As suggested by Creswell (2014), the
researcher used open-ended questions in a semi-structured format to elicit responses and foster
discussion. Probing questions supported the conversations and added depth to the responses
(Maxwell, 2013). The focus group discussion lasted approximately 90 minutes.
Relying on note taking alone to document interviews allows content to be lost (Weiss,
1994). Similar to the interview process, recording the focus group discussion reduced the
missing relevant body language of the participants while focusing on detailed notes. Thus, study
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 65
used REV.COM to audio record and transcribe all focus groups discussions. As with the
individual interviews, the use of recording devices did not negate the value of note taking. Note
taking can help generate new questions or redirect focus to something covered previously
(Patton, 2002). The researcher placed all recordings, transcriptions, and notes in a secure
location and applied password protection when applicable.
Observation Checklist Design
Observations provide firsthand knowledge of events as they occur in their natural setting
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and serve as a valuable tool to help understand the challenge of
victim retention in the county facility. The researcher obtained permission from the RCSSA to
conduct a site visit of its emergency shelter facility used for housing CSEC victims. The
observation occurred in the presence of an authorized facility staff member and lasted
approximately one hour. The researcher recorded observer comments during the site visit as
supported by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The areas of interest included intake and processing,
counseling rooms, living quarters, recreation rooms, and common access areas. The researcher
used an observational checklist to indicate the presence of policies, resources, and cultural
settings identified in Tables 5 through 7. The facility observation checklist for this study can be
found in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
This study applied a mixed-methods approach to exploring the achievement gap related
to victim retention in emergency housing. Investigative methods included interviews, a focus
group, and observations. An explanation of the strategies used to analyze the data is found in the
following section.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 66
Interviews
For interviews, analyzing data started during the collection process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Through the use of active listening and careful observations, the internalization of
information began. The researcher carefully reviewed and evaluated transcribed recordings. The
constant comparative method provided structure for coding responses based on Clark and Estes
(2008) knowledge, motivation and organizational framework. The approach started by labeling
raw pieces of data, or open codes, and then looking for connections that relate the individual
codes together (Lichtman, 2017). Common themes were categorized under knowledge types of
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and
goal orientation constructed the motivation category. Organizational themes included resources,
policies, processes and procedures, and culture.
Focus Group
Similar to the individual interviews, data analysis of the focus group began during the
collection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher actively listened to responses and
observed the interactions of the group. Probing questions helped further the discussion and
provided clarity of remarks and an increased understanding of the shared experiences. The
researcher reviewed the transcribed recordings of the focus group as well as handwritten notes
from the session. The constant comparative method provided structure for coding the discussion
points of the group based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational
framework. As suggested by Lichtman (2017), the process began by labeling raw pieces of data,
or open codes, and then looking for connections that relate the individual codes together. The
researcher categorized common themes under knowledge types that included factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and goal orientation
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 67
comprised the motivation category. Organizational themes included resources, policies,
processes and procedures, and culture.
Observations
For observations, analysis began with a review of the facility observation form and the
handwritten observer comments. When analyzing materials, personal memos serve as reflection
tools for evaluating frame of mind, opinions, and beliefs that could potentially influence data
interpretation (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). A coding scheme was used to help gauge the presence
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that exist within the emergency shelter.
Facility observations provided a means of triangulating emerging findings from the individual
interviews and focus group as well as helped to reduce potential biases (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data
Producing a credible analysis begins with quality data collection. Conclusion are only
valid if the information collected is trustworthy and complete enough to make a statement.
Ideally, a study collects data until the point of saturation, where no new information continues to
surface (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). CSEC is a clandestine industry and access to victims is
limited. The legal and ethical parameters of this study, while essential to participant protection,
restrict access to the population even further. Limited data require a critical eye with an honest
effort toward eliminating potential bias or the subjectivity of the researcher (Maxwell 2013;
Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña 2014). Acknowledging preconceptions CSEC victims helped
minimize bias interpretations of their remarks.
Triangulation, or the use of multiple data sources and approaches (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016), is a valuable tool for establishing credibility. Individual interviews of CSEC survivors
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 68
provided insight into their experiences as victims in emergency shelters, which served as a level
of comparison for themes and patterns. The use of focus groups provided further discussion
among survivors that helped validate interview responses. Observations captured independent
data that further strengthen or diminish the credibility of interview and focus group responses.
This study followed Bogdan and Biklen’s (2007) recommendation of a straightforward
approach to gaining access to essential information. Participants received candid information
regarding the purpose of the study. They had a clear understanding about the purpose of the
interview, their role in the study, and the intended audience. The transparency allowed them to
make an informed decision about their participation in the study. Note taking alone allows
content to be lost (Weiss, 1994), therefore interviews were audio recorded to preserve the
integrity of statements. As a matter of ethics and legality, the study’s protocols required the
admonishment of victims of the intent to record, and prohibited doing so without consent.
Role of Investigator
The investigator in this study is a local law enforcement administrator. The investigator,
however, does not work in the field of human trafficking and has no connection or influence over
any of the participants or their respective cases, past or future. The investigator was responsible
for adhering to all aspects of IRB, protecting the validity of the study, and the confidentiality of
the participants. The investigator recognized the sensitivity of the topic and remained dedicated
to protecting the emotional health and well-being of the participants at all times.
The investigator took several steps to mitigate any perceived imbalance of power created
by position or gender. Participants received a copy of the informed consent form prior to
meeting with the investigator. Each participant had an opportunity to consult with an advocate
prior to their appointment to discuss concerns about the study or the investigator. The individual
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 69
interviews and focus group took place at a facility with which the participants were familiar and
associated with positive interactions. Advocates reassured participants their personal
information would not be used in the study or released to the investigator.
Advocates, with whom the participants had prior acquaintance, introduced the
participants to the investigator on the day of their appointment. The advocate escorted the
participant and investigator to the designated meeting space of offered to remain with the
participant if they desired. Doors and window shades remained open or closed at the sole
discretion of the participants. Chairs within the room were set at equal height and the participant
took the seat closest to the door. To help build rapport, each session began with a short dialog
about the study followed by an invitation for the participants to ask questions of the investigator.
The investigator reassured each participant that their comfort with the process was a priority and
highlighted their ability to skip questions without judgment or terminate the session at any time.
Limitations and Delimitations
The number of victims selected for this study is small when measured against the
population of CSEC victims in Southern California. There is always a risk that the selected
participants do not adequately represent the body of stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). Each
victim’s journey is unique. The experiences of the victims studied may not be reflective of the
CSEC population at large.
It is possible that victims were not completely forthcoming with their interview or focus
group responses. They may have chosen to embellish or withhold details of their experiences. It
is further possible the trauma of their exploitation influenced their perception or recollection of
facts. Although the study evoked measures to validate responses, some potential margin of error
remained.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 70
Lastly, the focus of this study was to explore the achievement gap related to the retention
of CSEC victims in emergency housing. The scope of the study was limited to the perceptions
and experiences of one stakeholder: the victims. Other latent factors beyond the lens of victims
may significantly influence the performance gap. A complete and comprehensive study would
require the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders such as shelter staff and administrators, victim
advocates, and law enforcement.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 71
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to report the results and findings from analysis of data
collected related to the gap in the shelter retention rates of CSEC housed in the County of
Riverview. Based on the literature, Chapter Two identified 14 assumed causes influencing the
retention gap of CSEC victims and organized them into three categories: knowledge, motivation,
and organization. Chapter Three presented the methodology for assessing all 14 assumed causes
explored in this study. This chapter organizes the assessment results of the assumed causes using
the same knowledge, motivation, and organization categories.
Multiple sources of qualitative data were collected to validate the assumed causes.
Specifically, the researcher used interviews, a focus group, and observations to help understand
the knowledge, motivation, and organization challenges CSEC victims encounter with housing.
Data were collected in this order: interviews first, focus group second, and observations third.
The rationale was that interviews provided insight into individual experiences and perspectives.
The focus group then helped validate interview responses and flesh out deeper responses to
identified themes. Data collection concluded with observations, allowing the researcher to better
connect the site visit with themes discussed during the focus group and interview sessions.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study were human trafficking survivors with a minimum of
three years of experience as a sexually exploited youth who spent time in a shelter on at least one
occasion in connection with their CSEC status. All of the participants were adults at the time of
the study. Due to the design restrictions of this study, all participants remained anonymous. As
a result, minimal demographic information was available. Demographic information obtained
resulted from personal observations and self-disclosed remarks made during interviews. All of
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 72
the participants were female and ranged in age from 18 to 25. Seven survivors were Black
(58.3%), three were Hispanic (25%), one was Caucasian (8.3%), and one was Samoan (8.3%).
Twelve survivors participated in semi-structured interviews. Five participants signed up for the
focus group, but only four showed up and participated in the event. No stakeholders participated
in the observation phase of data collection.
Determination of Assets and Needs
This study made use of interviews, a focus group, and observations to assess participants’
knowledge, motivation, and perceptions of organizational support related to emergency housing.
The study analyzed the collected data to determine whether or not assumed influences related to
housing retention rates of CSEC victims could be determined as assets or needs. For the purpose
of this study, a need is an influence experienced by participants that requires attention from the
organization to improve retention rates. The study used a semi-structured format that
incorporated researcher discretion to evaluate each influence.
The identities of the participants for both interviews and the focus group remained
anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the topic. The Riverview County Human Trafficking
Task Force and Waymakers recruited the survivors and vetted their backgrounds to verify each
participant met the study’s criteria. The researcher started with interviews and collected
responses to the point of saturation. Common themes emerged early during the interviews and
became solidified by the conclusion of the process. The researcher facilitated a focus group at
the conclusion of the interviews. The focus group discussed the same topics as the interviews,
concentrating on the established themes. The focus groups allowed for a deeper exploration of
the themes and the opportunity to validate responses. Where appropriate, the researcher used
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 73
observations of the county’s housing facility to further triangulate interview and focus group
responses.
The researcher transcribed the focus group discussion and survivor interviews and
analyzed them as they related to each of the assumed gaps. The researcher set a threshold of
80% for establishing agreement among participants. Establishing an influence as an asset
required agreement within both the focus group and among the interviewed survivors. In some
cases, a minority voice significantly influenced the results, particularly when supported by
compelling observational findings. Establishing a need based on observations during the site
visit required three or more observable characteristics.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
Qualitative data, collected by way of semi-structured interviews, a focus group session,
and observations, produced data regarding the perceived gaps in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational processes. The researcher organized the assumed causes of the knowledge gaps
into four categories: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). The following section reports the results and findings for the knowledge causes
contributing to the gap. Specifically, shelter staff need to be aware of the following knowledge
causes influencing CSEC victims’ decision to remain in housing: factual knowledge (CSEC
victims need to know the expectations for living in emergency housing), conceptual knowledge
(CSEC victims need to understand the relationship between housing and survivorship),
procedural knowledge (CSEC victims need to know how to participate in their recovery process),
and metacognitive knowledge (CSEC victims need to value exiting the life).
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 74
Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. CSEC victims need to know the expectations for victims living in
emergency housing.
Interview findings. Participants were asked, “Did you know the facility expectations for
you when you entered housing?” There was a general agreement between interviewees that
housing facilities provide expectations to residents upon arrival, but only eight (66%) expressed
that the facility expectations were clear and relatively easy to understand, and, thus, did not meet
the 80% threshold to be considered an asset. One survivor stated, “They told me the rules and I
was able to follow them.” Another survivor remarked, “Oh, yeah, they were clear, trust me.
When you first got there, you would sign an agreement. They would go over all the rules.”
Another pointed out, “They made the rules pretty clear. There were posters on the wall.” Some
of the interviewees acknowledged receiving the rules but felt they lacked clarity. One survivor
remarked, “They don’t really explain the rules to you. They make you sign a document, but
you’re not going to read it.” Another said, “the rules kept changing,” but she admitted she used
drugs heavily before she arrived and had difficulty remembering things. Another expressed
difficulty keeping up with the rules that seemed to change regularly depending on which staff
was on-duty.
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the participants of the focus
group were asked whether they knew the facility’s expectations when they entered. There was a
general agreement among the members of the focus group that housing facilities do provide rules
and expectations, thus making this an asset. Regarding the expectations, one survivor stated,
“They tell you that once you get there.” A second survivor supported her remark stating, “They
actually sat you down, they told you and showed you.” The second survivor added, “Other than
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 75
that, they never repeated it until someone broke it.” A third survivor said, “Once they
established their little rules, we also had daily tasks. They would throw in groups and meetings.
You would have to meet with this person; you would have to meet with that person.”
Observation. A site visit of the county shelter revealed rules, expectations, and
behavioral requirements posted in multiple forms and locations. The researcher observed copies
of the house rules and bullying policy issued to each victim. The counselor and youth sign a
contract indicating a personal understanding of the expectations. The facility further displays
guidelines for behavior in the common areas, including identified consequences and rewards.
Staff utilizes a “Motivation Board” mounted on the wall adjacent to the family room area. The
board lists the names of house residents under-identified levels of progression and behavior.
Freedoms and privileges expand for each resident as they progress through the levels. A staff
member is present in each residence and available as a resource to answer questions about rules
of conduct or expectations.
Summary. Both interviewed survivors and focus group members expressed a general
agreement that housing facilities provide rules and expectations to CSEC victims upon arrival.
Both groups shared examples of how housing staff communicates and enforces rules and
expectations. Some of the interviewed survivors, however, commented that expectations were
unclear and inconsistent. A few admitted they did not read the material provided containing
rules and expectations. Facility observations revealed numerous opportunities for victims to
learn and refresh their knowledge of house rules and expectations. Because only 66% of the
interviewed survivors expressed that the facility expectations were clear, this assumed influence
should be considered a factual knowledge need for victims to know the expectations for living in
housing. Thus, the factual knowledge influence is determined to be a need.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 76
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 2. CSEC victims need to understand the relationship between housing
and survivorship.
Interview findings. Participants were asked, “When you were placed in housing for the
first time, how did you anticipate that housing would affect your quality of life?” While those
interviewed recognized the benefits of housing today, they all acknowledged having a negative
image of how housing would impact their quality of life when they first arrived, thus making this
a need. There was a clear agreement among those interviewed that housing positively impacted
their success as survivors. One survivor stated, “It has helped by keeping me off the streets,
having somewhere to eat, sleep and getting a job, doing positive things. If it wasn’t for them, I
would still be back out there.” Another simply put it, “It helped me realize that I am a victim and
not a criminal.” The survivors’ initial reactions to housing, however, were quite different. One
survivor stated, “I felt like I was in jail.” Another survivor commented, “I didn’t want to go at
first. I believed they would be more controlling.” Other interviewees said that they really did
not know what to expect from the shelter.
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the survivors in the focus
group were asked how they felt housing would impact their lives. Although the group
acknowledged the positive role housing plays in exiting the life, there was a general agreement
among the group that they did not recognize the benefits of housing when they first arrived, thus
making this a need. A survivor opened the conversation with, “I fought the whole process. I felt
I didn’t fit there.” Another survivor said, “In the beginning, I didn’t feel like it was better. I felt
like I wanted to be where I was at.” She further explained her resistance and what she felt
housing was pulling her away from stating, “Once you’re in the life, it’s different. You’re not a
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 77
victim in the life; you’re part of a family.” A survivor expressed her initial perception of the
shelter as a place “with people telling me what to do and expecting me to be happy about it.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. All of the interviewed survivors and focus group members developed an
understanding over time of how housing impacts survivorship. Most did not connect housing
with survivorship when they first entered a shelter and some simply did not know what to expect.
Because all of the interviewees expressed negative impressions of how housing would impact
their lives when they arrived, this assumed influence should be considered a knowledge need and
indicates CSEC victims entering shelters do not understand the relationship between housing and
survivorship. Thus, this conceptual knowledge influence is a need.
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 3. Victims need to know how to participate in their recovery process.
Interview findings. Participants were asked, “What are some of the ways CSEC can
participate in their own recovery process?” While each of the participants had some knowledge
regarding how to participate in their own recovery, all of them expressed a lack of knowledge in
this area when first contacted by authorities, thus making this a need. As survivors, the
participants provided several examples of how victims can support their own recovery process.
One participant highlighted the importance of developing positive relationships and attending
therapy sessions. Another stated that “being open is definitely a step.” A third pointed out, “you
can express yourself in writing rather than just verbally. When I couldn’t speak it, I wrote it
down and it helped a lot more.” An area of the recovery process interviewees struggled to
participate in was their ability to communicate their needs with the police or shelter staff. When
discussing these initial conversations, one survivor stated, “I was very nervous, very
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 78
uncomfortable.” Another added, “even when I would try to reach out, it would not turn out
positive for me.” A lack of confidence in how to reach out to law enforcement for help was a
common theme. When talking about the police, one survivor explained, “They don’t see you as
a victim. They look at you like a criminal. It makes me very nervous. I start sweating and
everything.”
Focus group findings. As with the individual interviews, the focus group members were
asked whether they knew how victims can participate in their own recovery. There was a clear
agreement among the group that they did not know how to participate in their recovery process
when they began their journey toward survivorship, thus making this a need. As survivors, all of
the focus group members demonstrated knowledge of how victims can participate in the
recovery process. One survivor highlighted the importance of learning to accept what happened
as a first step to learning to deal with it. Another said, “I had to learn to trust” as she spoke about
the process of allowing others to help her. The survivors discussed a three-stage process learned
in housing that teaches victims how to transition into a normal lifestyle. The group shared that
they did not know how to participate in their recovery process when it came to asking for help.
One survivor commented, “A lot of us are conditioned not to go to authority figures for help.”
Referring to the shelter staff, one survivor said, “I remember coming in feeling like, who are
these people and what do they really want?” Skepticism was even higher when it came to asking
for help from the police, as one survivor remarked, “The police would come, and it would be a
worse situation. Nowhere in my world would I even know how to ask for that from them.”
Observation. The site observation revealed no substantial evidence supporting victims’
knowledge of how to participate in their own recovery process. A grease board on the living
room wall categorized residents’ names, which corresponded to earned privileges based on
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 79
behavior. Progression through the levels suggests some knowledge of how to participate in
activities by managing housing expectations. Listed activities were social in nature rather than
recovery-oriented, such as signing up for counseling sessions, mentoring, or group therapy.
Summary. All of the interviewed survivors and focus group members demonstrated
their knowledge of how to participate in the recovery process as a victim. Both groups, however,
expressed their lack of knowledge in how to participate in the recovery process when they first
began their journey to survivorship. Specifically, the groups identified a common participation
challenge of not knowing how to go about asking for help, both from law enforcement and
shelter staff. Further, the site visit to the shelter facility did not yield observable evidence that
victims know how to participate in their own recovery. Because all of the interviewees
communicated an inability to ask for help, a participation theme supported by the focus group,
this assumed influence should be considered a procedural knowledge need for victims to know
how to participate in their own recovery process. Therefore, this influence is determined to be a
need.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 4. CSEC victims need to think about what it means to be a survivor.
Interview findings. Participants were asked, “What does it mean to you to be a
survivor?” Eleven (92%) participants shared that they reflected to some extent on what
survivorship meant, thus making this an asset. One interviewee stated, “I always used to think
about being normal. Like going to school, going to college, being part of a sorority, getting
married.” Another survivor said, “I just wanted to do regular things: go to the mall with my
friends, have coffee, go to a PJ party.” Their perspective varied greatly depending on where they
were in the healing process. Some survivors felt confident with their responses stating, “I feel
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 80
accomplished. I’m out of the situation” or “It means that I can help someone else.” Others were
less certain what the term survivor meant to them stating, “Surviving is still happening for me.
I’m in the healing process” or “I’m still trying to survive from day to day.” When reflecting
upon entering housing for the first time, one survivor indicated she did not consider what it
meant to be a survivor. She did not see herself as a victim at the time stating, “This was my life.
It was normal.”
Focus group findings. Focus group members were asked whether they thought about
what it would be like to be free before they became survivors. There was a clear consensus
among the groups that each of them thought about what it would be like to live a normal life,
thus making this an asset. One survivor started the conversation with, “While I was in the life, I
would think about it. It would be a thought I never believed would come to fruition.” A
survivor remembered thinking, “I always wanted to go to school. I always wanted to have a
regular 9 to 5 job.” Another survivor mused, “I used to think about it like I was a princess. The
imaginary prince would come and save me from all this stuff.” Although difficult to accept, each
of them thought about the simple benefits of being free. One survivor remembered thinking,
“Oh, I can eat. I can make toast; you’re telling me I can make my own bagel?” Contemplating
survivorship became easier over time as one survivor recalled thinking, “Yeah, this could be my
life. I am worthy and I deserve to be loved.”
Observation. The site observation revealed numerous signs of personal expression in the
form of arts, crafts, and drawings; however, none of the items overtly indicated personal
reflection about survivorship.
Summary. There was a clear agreement among interviewed survivors and focus group
members that victims think about what it means to be a survivor, sometimes positively and
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 81
sometimes negatively. At a minimum, they reflect on how their life would be different outside
their current situation. Survivors in both groups expressed not feeling like a victim or even
knowing what a normal life was when they entered housing. Several of those survivors recalled
observing other young women living the “square life” and reflecting on how different their lives
were. The site observation revealed numerous signs of expression, but none demonstrated signs
of personal reflection about survivorship. Because both interviewed survivors and focus group
members clearly expressed reflecting on life outside their circumstances, this assumed influence
should be considered a metacognitive knowledge asset and indicates that victims do think about
what it means to be a survivor. Therefore, this metacognitive knowledge influence is determined
to be an asset.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
This study collected data regarding the perceived influences of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational processes. The researcher organized the assumed influences of motivation
into five categories: value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and goal. The following section
reports the results and findings for those motivational influences and identifies them as assets or
needs. Shelter staff need to be cognizant of the following motivational influences contributing to
CSEC victim’s decision to remain in housing: value (CSEC victims need to value exiting the
life), self-efficacy (CESC victims need to feel confident they can adapt to a traditional lifestyle.),
mood (CSEC victims need to feel positive about the benefits of remaining in emergency
housing), attribution, (Victims need to attribute successfully exiting the life to their own efforts),
goal (Victims need to persist at achieving survivorship).

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 82
Value
Influence 5. CSEC victims need to value exiting the life.
Interview findings. Participants were asked if they valued exiting the life when they
entered housing. Only seven (58%) participants expressed value in exiting the life when they
first arrived in housing, and, thus, did not meet the 80% threshold to be considered an asset. As
survivors, the participants valued exiting the life, however, they acknowledged the degree of
value varied by time and circumstance. One survivor recalled that, as a younger victim, she
valued freedom and money more than survivorship and had no desire to be part of “the system.”
Another said, “I didn’t even know what normal was. A lot was drilled into my head about what I
was supposed to do. I wasn’t really engaged in my own thoughts.” One girl valued exiting the
life from the start stating, “I always wanted to get out. I never liked my lifestyle.” For others,
the process of developing value took time. One survivor shared, “In my most vulnerable
moments when I was really broken or beat up, I would go through stages where I would want to
get out.” Another remembered her perspective change as she reached the age of 18 noting,
“nobody will have my back as an adult.” Two of the survivors expressed value in exiting the life
once they had a child of their own to worry about. One survivor commented, “That little girl
saved my life. She gave me something to fight for.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group was asked
about the value they placed on exiting the life. There was a lack of agreement among the focus
group participants regarding the value of exiting the life, thus making this a need. One survivor
commented, “I was comfortable where I was. When something positive came, I challenged it.”
In regards to living a traditional lifestyle on survivor commented, “I didn’t know anything about
that, and I wasn’t going to be part of something that I wasn’t about.” Another survivor in the
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 83
group spoke up: “I wanted it. If you don’t want it, you ain’t about to get it.” Upon reflection,
the first survivor changed her perspective, stating, “Yeah, this is what I wanted. I wanted to be
with my kids.” There was a general agreement among the group in terms of value when it came
to being able to make simple yet personal choices such as what to do, what to eat, and how to
feel. A group member summed it up, “For the first time ever, we finally have a choice.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Although all of the interviewed survivors came to value exiting their
lifestyles, their values varied significantly when they first entered housing. A few survivors
wanted out of the life from the start while others needed time to develop value in embracing a
better way of life. In addition, focus group members demonstrated conflicting perspectives
regarding their value and desire to change their lifestyle. Because only seven of the 12 (58%)
interviewed survivors expressed value in exiting their lifestyle when they first arrived in housing,
this assumed influence should be considered a motivation need and indicates CSEC victims
entering housing do not value exiting the life. Therefore, this value motivation influence is
determined to be a need.
Self-Efficacy
Influence 6. CESC victims need to feel confident they can adapt to a traditional
lifestyle.
Interview findings. Participants were asked to describe their confidence level for
adapting to a traditional lifestyle upon entering housing. None of the participants said they felt
confident in their ability to adapt to a traditional lifestyle when they first entered housing, thus
making this a need. There was a clear agreement among the interviewed survivors regarding the
challenges of exiting the life. One survivor remarked, “I didn’t know what I would do. I didn’t
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 84
even know where to start.” Another survivor stated, “I had no confidence at all; who’s going to
be there for me when I need it?” In describing her confidence level, one survivor explained, “It
just felt like a joke; this is never going to work.” The majority of those interviewed feared they
could not sustain a traditional lifestyle beyond the shelter, particularly in the areas of long-term
housing and employment. One survivor elaborated, “It’s so hard. I feel like I’m just now
learning to adapt to a traditional lifestyle.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the interview participants, the focus group was asked
about their confidence levels for adapting to a traditional lifestyle. There was a clear agreement
among the focus group that none of them initially had confidence in their ability to adapt to a
traditional lifestyle, thus making this a need. One survivor was very direct, “I wasn’t going to
adapt to a traditional lifestyle. It wasn’t for me. I was going to run.” Another survivor
commented, “Confidence in going to a shelter, there was no confidence.” One survivor
explained that she never considered transitioning to a normal lifestyle as an option, as she simply
had nowhere to go. She focused on “a different kind of survival” where she felt she needed to
prove she was not weak to the other girls in the house. She stated, “I smiled, and I grinned, and I
made it the fuck out.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. There were strong feelings among the interviewed survivors and the focus
group regarding the challenges of adjusting to a traditional lifestyle. Both groups stated that their
self-efficacy was low when they began their journey to survivorship and several shared that they
continue to struggle with self-efficacy today when exposed to individual triggers. Because all of
the interviewed survivors reported a lack of confidence in their ability to adapt to a traditional
lifestyle upon entering housing, this assumed influence should be considered a motivation need
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 85
and indicates CSEC victims do not feel confident they can adapt to a traditional lifestyle.
Therefore, this self-efficacy motivation influence is determined to be a need.
Mood
Influence 7. CSEC victims need to feel positive about the benefits of remaining in
emergency housing.
Interview findings. The participants were asked to describe their feelings about living in
housing as a CSEC victim. The interviewed survivors expressed a lack of agreement regarding
their initial desire to remain in housing. Only three (25%) survivors felt positive about
remaining in housing at an early stage, and, thus, did not meet the 80% threshold to be
considered an asset. One survivor explained, “You have a place to sleep, you have food, and
they give you clothes.” Similarly, another stated, “I get to have a meal here. I get to have a bed.
I was just excited about the little things.” One simply remarked, “I was actually very grateful. I
knew it was better than what I had.” Nine of the 12 (75%), however, felt negatively about
remaining in housing, often citing fear or uncertainty. One survivor related, “I was kind of
scared because men worked in the placement” and another shared, “I was very nervous. My first
weeks, I cried all the time.” Other survivors expressed anger and frustration stating, “I felt
trapped. I couldn’t go out, I couldn’t do anything.” One survivor passionately shared, “When I
first got to housing, I already had my mind set. I was going to run away.”
Focus group findings. As with the individual interviews, the focus group was also asked
to share their feelings about staying in a housing facility. Members of the focus group expressed
a lack of agreement about the benefits of remaining in housing when they first arrived, thus
making this a need. The group generally agreed that the placements were for their own good but
still felt they represented another form of control. One survivor shared, “In the beginning, I
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 86
didn’t feel like it was better. I felt like I wanted to be where I was at.” A second survivor agreed
stating, “I felt like I didn’t have a choice” but added, “I was cool with not having a choice
because I was just tired.” One girl remembered thinking, “I don’t want to be here with these
strangers telling me how to live my life.” The group acknowledged that negative experiences
with law enforcement often influenced their feelings about housing. A survivor explained, “The
same people that put me in there just put me in the backseat of a police car. Now, you are going
to take me over to this shelter, it’s a good thing? Why would I trust you?”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. There was a lack of agreement among interviewed survivors as well as focus
group members regarding their feelings about remaining in housing. Some developed positive
feelings about housing quickly while others expressed anger, fear, and uncertainty. Because only
25% of the interviewed survivors reported positive feelings about remaining in housing when
they arrived, this assumed influence should be considered a motivation need for victims to feel
positive about the benefits of remaining in emergency housing. Therefore, this mood motivation
influence is determined to be a need.
Attribution
Influence 8. Victims need to attribute successfully exiting the life to their own
efforts.
Interview findings. The participants were asked, “What do you believe are the main
factors contributing to your success as a survivor?” There was a general agreement among the
participants that success was attributed to external support and consistency rather than personal
effort, thus making this a need. A strong support system was a catalyst for change and victims
without it often lacked agency. As one survivor put it, “The fact that you’re a child, you’re a
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 87
minor, nobody really listens to you.” A consensus existed among the survivors that both peers
and authority figures judged them because of their experiences. A survivor stated, “I was being
labeled, and I believed what other people thought about me.” Interactions with others caused
some to question their personal ability to succeed. One survivor explained, “You talk to other
people with normal lives saying things you don’t understand. They talk about shows, movies,
school, books, things that just go over your head. It makes you wonder if you are even capable
of being normal.” Another attributed perception to limiting her success, “You apply for a job
and they pull a background. The first thing they see is misdemeanors for solicitation for sex.
Why do I keep trying to be normal?”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the participants of the focus
group were asked to articulate reasons for their success in exiting the life. There was a general
agreement among the group that outside factors are often gatekeepers of success when it comes
to exiting the life, thus making this a need. This predominantly existed in the area of support as
it related to consistency and follow-through. A survivor provided an example from her
experience, “Don’t tell me you’re going to stand by my side, and then, when I need you, you up
and walk away.” The same survivor expressed wanting to return to the life because she believed
no one would ever hire her based on her background. She said, “I felt embarrassed by it and
ashamed about it.” Another survivor expressed feeling a lack of agency stating, “As youth, you
don’t have control over your life because other people are making decisions for you.” A
survivor did demonstrate a sense of control over her ability to succeed. As she spoke about a
time when she slipped back into the life, she acknowledged, “I know I don’t have to live like
this. It’s a choice.” Another survivor spoke about her own progress stating, “Happiness starts
inside. Nobody else can give that to you. So, if you want it, go get it.”
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 88
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. The interviewed survivors overwhelmingly credited their success of exiting
the life to external sources, such as an advocate or counselor. Both interviewed survivors and
focus group recognized consistent support, above effort or ability, as ingredients for success
when exiting the life. Several individuals in both groups also attributed opportunity and success
to how others perceived their experiences as a victim. Because the majority of individuals in
both groups attributed their success in exiting the life to external factors, this assumed influence
should be considered a motivation need for victims to attribute successfully exiting the life to
their own efforts. Therefore, this attribution motivation influence is determined to be a need.
Goal
Influence 9. Victims need to persist at achieving survivorship.
Interview findings. Participants were asked to describe their ability to persist through the
challenges of exiting the life. While acknowledging triggers exist that continually test their
resolve, 11 (92%) participants communicated their persistent efforts to become a survivor, thus
making this an asset. There was clear agreement among the participants that exiting the life is
not easy and that each of them considered giving up prior to achieving success. This was evident
by their choice to leave housing on one or more occasions. One survivor commented, “It was
overwhelming to transition yourself into a better situation. I didn’t have that push; I didn’t have
that drive.” The majority of the participants expressed resilience in their remarks. One survivor
explained, “Sometimes, I feel like, because of what I went through, that I can’t succeed. But,
when I put in the effort and then the support I get from the shelter, it’s like you can do it.”
Another shared, “I’ve been barely making rent. I know there is an easy way to make cash, and
every day I have to tell myself no. Every day, I have to force myself to go to work.” Another
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 89
survivor remarked, “You have to want a better life and make that choice. As long as I’m making
progress with myself then I’m okay.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group was asked to
discuss how they push through the challenges of becoming a survivor. There was a clear
agreement among the focus group that survivorship is a process, one that takes time and
continual effort, thus making this an asset. One survivor shared, “For me, it goes up and down
each day. Some days, I get up and I feel great about it. Other days, it’s hard to keep going.”
Another survivor told the group, “I had to learn to work with people and trust people with my
story. Once I did it, I grew into who I am.” She further demonstrated a mastery mindset when
she added, “I had to learn not to feel guilty when my feelings were out of control and when I
messed up.” A third survivor demonstrated her persistence at survivorship after being turned
down for housing opportunities and jobs based on her record. She shared her determination
stating, “Although you have these things in your past, if it’s really what you want, there’s a
way.” One participant reminded the group that they often survived on much smaller goals,
stating, “I just needed to make it until sunrise.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Both interviewed survivors and focus group members provided numerous
examples of how they continue to press forward toward survivorship despite the challenges they
face in everyday life. Because of their positive responses, this assumed influence should be
considered a motivation asset and indicates that victims do persist at achieving survivorship.
Therefore, this motivation influence was determined to be an asset.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 90
Results and Findings for Organization Influences
This study collected data regarding the perceived influences in knowledge, motivation,
and organizational processes that affect retention rates of CSEC victims. The following section
reports the results and findings for the organizational influences. Those working with victims
need to be mindful of the following organizational influences contributing to victims’ decisions
to remain in housing: resources (CSEC victims need advocates who understand the value of a
trauma-informed approach to providing services); policy, processes, and procedures (CSEC need
both law enforcement and shelter policies that are adapted to their unique form of victimization);
and culture (CSEC victims need a culture that focuses on victim empowerment; CSEC need a
culture that supports sharing and learning with other victims).
Resources
Influence 10. CSEC victims need advocates who understand the value of a trauma-
informed approach to providing services.
Interview findings. Participants were asked to describe their access to victim advocates
during their time in housing. Initial responses regarding the caliber of staff working in the
facilities were mixed, however, all of the participants later went on to describe how advocates
applied a trauma-informed approach to make personal connection with victims, thus making this
an asset. Several of the participants reported having negative impressions of the housing staff
when they first arrived. One survivor commented, “There was very minimal knowledge that we
were really victims.” Similarly, another said, “Just with the trauma I was going through, they
didn’t understand.” One survivor acknowledged having access to advocates but shared, “I just
really didn’t know how to use them.” Advocates did not always measure up to expectations as
reflected in one comment, “These people don’t care. It’s just a job to them. It’s just a
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 91
paycheck.” Another survivor blamed the retention challenge on the staff: “They really don’t
know what’s going on. That’s why we keep getting AWOLS.”
When discussing factors contributing to their success, the narrative was quite different.
There was a clear agreement among the survivors that unconditional support from others in their
lives contributed significantly to their success. They all provided examples of how shelter staff
connected with them and showed support. One survivor stated, “it made me feel good. They
were willing to put in the effort to help you.” Another commented on her advocate’s approach
stating, “She’s like my security blanket. I feel comfortable with her. She never pressured me to
open up or talk. She let me take my time.” Similarly, another commented about the staff in her
shelter, “They were good listeners.” One survivor expressed appreciation for how her advocate
connected with her, “embracing me not as a victim or survivor, just embracing me.” Several
survivors echoed the sentiment of one survivor’s remark regarding shelter advocates, “Oh yeah. I
had good access. Whatever you needed.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group was asked
about their access to advocates during their time in housing. Only half of the focus group
believed that CSEC victims have access to quality advocates while in housing, thus making this a
need. One survivor acknowledged interacting with an advocate but said, “She didn’t know how
to deal with me. She didn’t know how to support me.” Another survivor expressed similar
feelings stating, “It felt like with advocates and therapists, that I was training them. I was a
walking book that they needed to read.” She admitted her feelings were a bit skewed at first
believing “the world was against me.” Two of the survivors expressed experiences that were
more favorable with advocates while in housing. One survivor stated, “they helped build my
self-esteem and made me accept myself for who I was now versus who I was then.” The last
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 92
survivor credited her advocate with helping her process what had happened to her, adding, “your
feelings are validated, and you’re told they matter.”
Observation. The shelter facility contained a wide range of staff and services on site to
assist victims with physical, psychological, emotional needs related to their trauma. Services
included an on-grounds medical clinic staffed by the County Health Care Agency, the county’s
department of education, social services, and a crisis intervention team. A counselor was present
in each of the cottages and available to assist victims with basic needs and support. The
counselor had phone numbers and resources posted in the office area of the cottage for additional
services available to victims around the clock.
Summary. The assumed influence that victims need advocates who understand the value
of a trauma-informed approach to providing services was determined to be a need in the focus
group, however, the influence was determined to be an asset in both the interview responses and
the observations. Several of the interviewed survivors and members of the focus group initially
expressed dissatisfaction with shelter staff, citing a lack of knowledge and uncaring behavior.
When pressed further about the behaviors of the shelter staff, all of the interviewed survivors
provided examples of how housing staff connected with them and showed support. Only 50% of
the focus group credited staff members with adequately helping them process their experiences.
Shelter observations revealed current staffing conditions to support a trauma-informed approach
with 24-hour access to a wide range of qualified individuals who understand the CSEC
population. Based on the interview responses regarding shelter staff actions, coupled with the
extensive resources observed during the site visit, this assumed influence should be considered
an organizational resource asset and indicates that victims in the Riverview County Shelter do
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 93
have access to qualified advocates. Therefore, this organizational resource influence was
determined to be an asset.
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Influence 11. CSEC needs law enforcement policies and procedures that are
adaptive to their unique form of victimization.
Interview findings. Participants were asked to describe their experiences with law
enforcement when contacted as a victim of human trafficking. All participants experienced one
or more negative interactions with law enforcement as a CSEC victim that impeded both their
trust in the system and their motivation to enter a shelter, thus making this a need. One survivor
stated, “I don’t trust law enforcement. They don’t see you as a victim.” Five of the 12 survivors
described being handcuffed and sitting on the curb or in the back of a police car as a victim. One
survivor explained her frustration with the process, “She [officer] put me in handcuffs but said
she wasn’t here to arrest me, which was very confusing to me.” She added that officers do not
explain things like “what’s happening next.” A survivor commented, “Sometimes, officers had
their hand on their gun. What am I going to do? I’m handcuffed.” Contemplating the ride to the
shelter, one survivor recalled thinking, “They’re playing me. I know I’m in trouble. I don’t
think I’m going to a safe place.”
A few of the survivors recalled positive experiences with law enforcement that left
lasting impressions. One survivor recalled an officer sitting with her and talking face to face.
She said, “It was really nice. It’s like they trust you enough to sit down in my presence. That’s a
big deal.” She went on to say, “He treated me like I was human. He was the first person in
years. The way he spoke to me was perfect. I needed that at the moment.” Another survivor
shared the confidence she felt with an officer who took the time to explain the process to her.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 94
She stated, “He didn’t laugh, he didn’t judge me, nothing.” The officer got her something to eat
and transported her to the shelter, unhandcuffed. She remarked, “Whatever he told me, I did. I
felt protected, like this guy was going to help me.” Another survivor expressed, “I feel like law
enforcement are the people who influence you the most in the system. If you had positive
influences with good law enforcement, you would be less likely to run.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group was asked to
discuss their experiences with law enforcement when contacted as a CSEC victim. There was a
clear agreement among the focus group that law enforcement procedures are not generally
adaptive to the needs of CSEC victims, leaving them feeling more like a criminal than a victim,
and, thus, making this a need. Referring to the police, one survivor commented, “They got you
on the ground, put handcuffs on you, they have their shades on and make their side comments.”
There was a consensus among the group that officers routinely referred to them as prostitutes
rather than using their names when speaking with other officers. A survivor shared, “The Johns
would be free to go right before my eyes, but I’m the one who’s being taken. You already
showed me something bad. Now you’re putting me in a shelter, it’s good for you. Why would I
trust you?”
Two of the focus group members spoke about favorable experiences with law
enforcement and shared why those contacts were so different. During one encounter, a survivor
recalled the subtle yet positive impact of the officer addressing her by name. She continued to
describe the process stating, “He didn’t even put me in handcuffs. He put me in the back of his
car and gave me a blanket. He made sure I was okay and asked if I was hungry.” She described
the manner in which the officer spoke to her, “He was eye level with me, like he actually saw
me, and saw me as a child.” A second survivor reported experiencing similar behavior from an
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 95
officer and noted her reaction. She said, “I saw him as a person. I didn’t see him as an officer.”
She also shared how the positive interaction affected her trust level, stating, “I felt relieved. I
was going with this man wherever he took me, and I was fine with it.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Both interviewed survivors and focus group members communicated the
significant role law enforcement plays in their trust of the system and their openness to viewing
housing as a positive option. Their experiences reinforce that shelter retention for CSEC begins
at first contact, not during admittance. CSEC view law enforcement as part of a system which,
for some, served as a catalyst for exploitation. Interaction with law enforcement, both with
interviewed survivors and focus group members, shaped the victim’s impression of what to
expect from shelter staff. Because all of the interviewed survivors and focus group members
reported interactions with the police that negatively influenced their motivation to enter a shelter,
this assumed influence should be considered an organizational need for law enforcement policies
and procedures to adapt to the needs of CSEC victims. Therefore, this organizational influence
related to policy, processes, and procedures is determined to be a need.
Influence 12. CSEC needs shelter policies and procedures adapted to their unique
form of victimization.
Interview findings. Participants were asked about the manner in which their housing
facility adapted to their needs. There was a mixed agreement among the interviewed survivors
as eight of the 12 (67%) participants reported negative experiences with shelter policies or
procedures, thus making this a need. One survivor said the shelter policies provided her good
access to resources, including other survivors. Another described a process by which shelter
staff bonded with victims through cooking. One survivor expressed her frustration, however,
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 96
with staff consistency stating, “Someone would start working with me and then they would be
gone within two weeks.” Others expressed a lack of focus and attention from staff during
individual counseling sessions. One survivor shared, “I need you focused on me. I don’t think
you can do that if people are walking in and out of your office.” Similarly, another said, “They
could have stayed off the phones and paid more attention. I felt like they didn’t care.” One
survivor shared that a staff member became frustrated and told her, “If you want to leave, the
door is right there.” She explained, “It gives me an excuse to leave.” Another survivor criticized
security practices, which allow a trafficker to show up at the property. She remarked, “If you
can’t keep me safe from the outside, then I don’t really need to stay.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group was asked
about their experiences with housing policies and procedures. There was a general agreement
among the focus group that shelters do not adequately adapt their policies and procedures to the
needs of CSEC victims, thus making this a need. One survivor felt the shelter did not share
enough information with her about the process before she started. Another survivor criticized
the policies and procedures for housing victims, stating, “They would send all the CSEC to the
same place. Same people you fought with, you’re going to fight again.” Another survivor spoke
about transparency regarding staff availability. She said, “You should have told me you were 9
to 5. Don’t tell me that you’re going to stand by my side, and then, when I need you, you up and
walk away.” Another survivor echoed those remarks stating, “I would look for signs of people
giving up. Would somebody be consistent even when I was messing up? Still be there, don’t
just get involved in a season of my life.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 97
Summary. The assumed influence that CSEC victims need shelter policies and
procedures adapted to their unique form of victimization was determined to be a need among
both interviewed survivors and the focus group. Of the interviewed survivors, 67% reported
negative experiences with shelter policies and procedures related to consistency and focus.
Distractions compromised the quality of time victims received with staff members. The results
showed that victims hold staff engagement during interaction in high regard, indicating that mere
time on task is not sufficient. For these women, the little things matter. Conveying a continual
sense of presence while interacting with victims is as important to them as the procedure itself.
Additionally, focus group members did not feel shelter policies and procedures conformed to
victim’s needs, particularly areas of consistency, availability, and security. Therefore, this
organizational influence related to policy, processes, and procedures is determined to be a need.
Culture
Influence 13. CSEC victims need a culture that focuses on victim empowerment.
Interview findings. Participants were asked to describe the culture of the housing
facility, including how the environment made them feel. There was a mixed agreement among
the participants resulting in six of the 12 (50%) survivors sharing factors about the housing
environment that impeded their feelings of empowerment, thus making this a need. One survivor
said, “We were in a lock-down facility that we can’t leave.” Another remarked, “I was basically
trapped.” One survivor described the facility as feeling like a mental hospital, stating, “It’s really
creepy. I literally had a little glass box at the bedroom, and they peeked their heads in.”
Similarly, another survivor said, “I can’t unlock the door. That’s scary. You’re like an animal.
You’re caged.” A victim described feeling more like a criminal in an institution than someone
who was free. A survivor shared, “White walls, uniform beds, everything looked the same. It
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 98
didn’t look like a home a family might live in.” The survivor added, “You were scared to touch
anything and put it out of place.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group members
were asked how the housing environment impacted their feelings of empowerment. The
discussion resulted in only 25% of the group expressing that the housing environment created
feelings of empowerment, thus making this a need. One survivor stated, “There was no sense of
decoration, you could not pick out nothing, the room was just plain.” Another survivor said,
“For me, it wasn’t even feeling like home. Why would I come stay in a little mini jail cell?”
One survivor had a different experience. She said, “We could decorate our rooms. They let us
do posters, art, everything. They had different comforters that we could pick out when we first
got there.” Another survivor remarked, “I didn’t experience any of that. That sounds amazing.”
The survivor with the positive experience continued to explain, “Decorating allows you to be
true to who you are. It gives you a sense of home being able to put stuff on the walls, being able
to have your little knick-knacks, or whatever.”
Observation. The county built the shelter facility on a 10-acre parcel of land, which
includes numerous greenbelts, a pool, dining hall, gymnasium, library, and recreation equipment.
Victims reside in a cottage-style residence, which includes a full kitchen, family room,
bedrooms, and a dormitory-style bathroom. None of the doors remain locked from the outside,
allowing residents unrestricted physical access to the exterior grounds. The common areas
contained numerous store-bought and resident-crafted holiday decorations. Bedrooms contained
handcrafted décor on the walls and doors. Residents personalized their pillows with their names
and other personal markings.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 99
Summary. The assumed influence that CSEC victims need a culture that focuses on
victim empowerment was determined to be a need among the interviewed survivors and in the
focus group, however during the site observation, the influence was determined to be an asset.
Half of the interviewed survivors shared negative factors about the housing environment that
affected their sense of empowerment. All but one of the focus group members described an
atmosphere of confinement and institutionalization. The dissenting voice in the focus group
(25%) shared how the facility supported victims decorating their living space and explained how
the experience of personal expression through decorating provided empowerment. The site
observation revealed a more home-like environment that supported and empowered victims.
The site observations supported the lone voice within the focus group that described the
shelter as a place that empowers victims through expression and creativity. The observations
contradicted interview responses and focus group members whose statements may be more
reflective of past practices. Based on the numerous examples of victim’s creativity and
expression observed in the shelter, this assumed influence should be considered an
organizational culture asset and indicates the shelter does maintain a culture that focuses on
victim empowerment. Therefore, this organizational culture influence is determined to be an
asset.
Influence 14. CSEC need a culture that supports sharing and learning with other
victims.
Interview findings. Participants were asked about their opportunities to share their
experiences with other CSEC victims while in housing. There was a general agreement among
the interviewed survivors that shelters do promote a culture of support by sharing with and
learning from other victims, thus making this an asset. One survivor said, “For some of us
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 100
speaking about who we are is healing. It makes you feel like you’re not alone.” Another shared,
“It was positive for me because I had never met girls who’ve been through the same thing
before.” One survivor expressed her reluctance to attend therapy with strangers; however, she
stated, “I did share my story with another girl. We still hang out. She’s my best friend.”
Another girl stated, “For me, I felt better when CSEC victims are together. You don’t have to
worry about the stigma. You can just be yourself.” One survivor admitted the process of sharing
can be overwhelming, stating, “Sometimes it can be a little draining. Sometimes, it’s just too
much.”
Focus group findings. Similar to the individual interviews, the focus group was asked
whether housing facilities provided them opportunities to share their stories with other victims.
There was a general agreement among the focus group that shelters do promote a culture of
support by sharing with and learning from other victims, thus making this an asset. One survivor
stated, “I was told that telling your story would help you heal and all that.” Another survivor
said, “Once I started telling my story and being comfortable with it, other people would start
sharing a little bit.” She later added, “I bonded with other people. That’s where the healing
started for me. I felt like it wasn’t just me in my secret world that went through it.” One
survivor shared that telling her story did not help her with her trauma but said, “Knowing that my
story would help someone else, that’s what healed me.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Both interviewed survivors and focus group members affirmed that housing
facilities regularly provide opportunities for victims to support each other. Based on their
responses and personal examples, this assumed influence should be considered an organizational
asset and indicates CSEC victims do experience a culture that supports sharing and learning with
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 101
other victims while in housing. Therefore, this organizational influence related to policy,
processes, and procedures is determined to be an asset.
Summary of Influences
Table 8, 9, and 10 show the knowledge, motivation and organization influences for this
study and their determination as an asset or a need.
Knowledge

Table 8
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influences Asset or Need
Factual
CSEC victims need to know the expectations
for victims living in emergency housing.

Need
Conceptual
CSEC victims need to understand the
relationship between housing and
survivorship.

Need
Procedural
CSEC victims need to know how to
participate in their recovery process.

Need
Metacognitive
CSEC victims need to think about what it
means to be a survivor.
Asset

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 102
Motivation

Table 9
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influences Asset or Need
Value
CSEC victims need to value exiting the life. Need
Self-efficacy
CESC victims need to feel confident they can
adapt to a traditional lifestyle.
Need
Mood
CSEC victims need to feel positive about the
benefits of remaining in emergency housing.
Need
Attribution
CSEC victims need to attribute successfully
exiting the life to their own efforts.
Need
Goal Orientation
CSEC victims need to persist at achieving
survivorship.
Asset

Organization

Table 10
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influences Asset or Need
Resources
CSEC victims need advocates who
understand the value of a trauma-informed
approach to providing services.
Asset
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
CSEC needs law enforcement policies and
procedures that are adaptive to their unique
form of victimization.
Need
CSEC needs shelter policies and procedures
adapted to their unique form of victimization.
Need
Culture
CSEC victims need a culture that focuses on
victim empowerment.
Asset
CSEC need a culture that supports sharing
and learning with other victims.
Asset

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 103
Chapter Five will explore proposed solutions for each of the validated causes identified
above. All recommendations presented will be evidence-based and supported by academic
literature.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 104
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to uncover the reasons the
RCSSA struggles with the retention of CESC victims in its shelter. The process explored
potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that hinder the agency from
achieving its organizational goal. While a complete and comprehensive gap analysis would
incorporate all stakeholders, for practical purposes this study focused on one stakeholder only:
the victims. Concentrating on the victims served to inform the agency of essential needs victims
have that require organizational attention to improve retention rates. The analysis began by
creating a list of assumed influences that were examined systematically to focus on actual or
validated causes leading to the performance gap. The questions that guide this study are the
following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with
CSEC victims remaining in emergency shelters until properly placed in long-term
housing?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions?

Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
The following section discusses recommendations to help the RCSSA improve the
retention rates of CSEC victims in the organization’s shelter. The section organizes the
recommendations into three parts: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Each section
contains an overview of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and the
rationale for categorizing them as needs. Tables in each section outline the influences, priority,
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 105
evidence-based principles supporting the recommendations, and recommended solutions for
addressing the challenge. A detailed discussion of the above content follows each table.
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. This study used semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and site
observations to collect data related to CSEC victim’s decision to remain in housing. The
following section discusses the assumed knowledge influences determined to be a need as a
result of the analyzed data. The results revealed validated gaps, or needs, affecting CSEC victims
that may assist the organization in making informed decisions that help improve shelter retention
rates. Of the assumed influences, the study identified one factual knowledge, one conceptual
knowledge, and one procedural knowledge need. The study did not identify a metacognitive
knowledge need. Table 11 provides a summary of the knowledge influences, priorities, related
principles, and recommendations. Following the table, this section provides a detailed
discussion of each knowledge influence, which includes evidence-based recommendations
supported by the literature.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 106
Table 11
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Factual
CSEC victims need to know
the expectations for victims
living in emergency
housing.
High Integrating auditory and
visual information
maximizes working
memory capacity
(Mayer, 2011).

Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered more
accurately because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Post house rule in the
common areas of the shelter
for easy reference.

Provide a copy of the rules,
expectations, and resources
in each of the victim’s
bedroom to be referenced
as needed.

Help victims connect new
knowledge with prior
knowledge by asking them
to recall positive behaviors
expected of them in other
settings, such as home or
school.
Conceptual
CSEC victims need to
understand the relationship
between housing and
survivorship.
High Information in one
disciplinary context,
moreover, may obstruct
learning and
performance in another
context (Ambrose et al.,
2010).

How individuals
organize knowledge
influences how they
learn and apply what
they know (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Help CSEC victims
organize characteristics that
separate victims from
survivors.

Provide victims the
opportunity to speak with
survivors about the impact
housing had on their
success.

Organize information that
highlights the success of
victims who remain in
housing.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 107
Table 11, continued
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Procedural
CSEC victims need to know
how to participate in their
recovery process.
High Effective observational
learning is achieved by
first organizing and
rehearsing the modeled
behaviors, and then
enacting them overtly
(Mayer, 2011).

Feedback that is private,
specific and timely
enhances performance
(Shute, 2008).
Demonstrate to victims
how to participate in the
available programs.

Provide victims access to
models of youth who are
successful navigating
through the recovery
process.

Have victims practice
participating in the
recovery process and
provide them feedback to
help them improve their
progress.

Declarative knowledge solutions. CSEC victims need to know the expectations for
victims living in emergency housing. According to Mayer (2011), integrating auditory and
visual information maximizes working memory capacity. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) add
that information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more
quickly and remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning. This
would suggest that, in addition to hearing expectations explained, individuals could benefit from
visual aids to help them remember what they need to know. The recommendation, then, for the
organization would be to post important information, such and house rules, in the common areas
of the shelter for easy reference. The organization should also consider providing a copy of the
rules, expectations, and resources in each of the victim’s bedroom to be referenced as needed.
To further understand facility expectations, staff should help victims connect new knowledge
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 108
with prior knowledge by asking them to recall positive behaviors expected of them in other
settings, such as home or school.
Smith et al. (2009) highlight the importance of shelter staff communicating facility
expectations and behavioral standards with CSEC victims upon arrival. Interviews and focus
group discussions suggested that victims often do receive expectations upon arrival, but their
understanding of the rules was not always clear. According to Ambrose et al. (2010) linking new
knowledge to prior knowledge can help with the learning process. Victims often have prior
shelter experience to draw upon to minimize the learning curve associated with understanding
the expectations of their current placement. Relating context to experiences offers an effective
means of learning material beyond just focusing on memorization (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Conceptual knowledge solutions. CSEC victims need to understand the relationship
between housing and survivorship. Information in one disciplinary context, moreover, may
obstruct learning and performance in another context (Ambrose et al., 2010). It is also important
to understand how individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what
they know (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). This would suggest that experience in other programs
or shelters may impede the connection between housing and survivorship. The recommendation,
then, for the organization would be to help victims organize characteristics that separate victims
from survivors. This could be augmented by providing victims with the opportunity to speak
with survivors, highlighting the impact housing had on their ability to successfully exit the life.
This could be reinforced by helping victims organize the information that lead to the success of
victims who chose to remain in their housing placement.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 109
It is important that victims develop an understanding of the recovery process, including
the connection between housing and survivorship (Corbett, 2018; Loomba, 2017). Eliminating
extraneous load, for example, enables effective learning (Kirschner et al., 2006). Stable housing
can afford victims the opportunity to focus on recovery efforts without the daily stressors of
food, shelter, and safety (Smith et al., 2009). As Schraw and McCrudden (2006) points out,
mastering critical skills can take time and practice. The literature appears to support helping
victims understand the relationship between housing and survivorship to leverage opportunities
to successfully exit their exploitative lifestyles.
Procedural knowledge solutions. CSEC victims need to know how to participate in
their recovery process. Effective observational learning is achieved by first organizing and
rehearsing modeled behaviors, and then enacting them overtly (Mayer, 2011). Performance is
further enhanced when supported by feedback that is private, specific and timely (Shute, 2008).
This would suggest that providing CSEC victims credible examples of how to participate in the
recovery process would support their understanding of it. The recommendation would be for
shelter staff to demonstrate for victims how to participate in available recovery programs in
addition to providing them access to other victims who are successfully navigating the recovery
process. Additionally, it is recommended that shelter staff provide timely feedback to victims
regarding their efforts to help them improve their recovery progress.
Performing any task requires familiarity with the required steps, both simple and complex
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Knowing when to apply the steps is also an important aspect of
procedural knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Victims can
benefit from survivors and other victims who experienced similar trauma (Dye, 2018; Loomba,
2017). Those with similar backgrounds and stories become credible models for others to follow
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 110
(Denler et al., 2009). By having access to qualified staff and credible models, the process of
learning how to participate in the recovery process becomes both vicarious and interactive (Dye,
2018; Mayer, 2011). Elaboration, or the feedback and explanation from one victim to another,
serves to increase understanding of material (Mayer, 2011). One victim helping another serve to
benefit both parties.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. This study used semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and site
observations to collect data related to CSEC victim’s decision to remain in housing. The
following section discusses the assumed motivation influences determined to be a need as a
result of the analyzed data. The results revealed validated gaps, or needs, affecting CSEC
victims that may assist the organization in making informed decisions that help improve shelter
retention rates. Of the assumed influences, the study identified one value, one self-efficacy, one
mood, and one attribution need. The study did not identify a goal-orientation need. Table 12
provides a summary of the motivation influences, priority, related principles, and
recommendations. Following the table, this section provides a detailed discussion of each
motivation influence, which includes evidence-based recommendations supported by the
literature.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 111
Table 12
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Value
CSEC victims need to value
exiting the life.
High Rationales that include a
discussion of the
importance and utility of
the work or learning can
help learners develop
positive values (Eccles,
2006).
Discuss with victims the
importance and utility of
exiting the life, health,
safety, and quality of life.

Self-Efficacy
CESC victims need to feel
confident they can adapt to
a traditional lifestyle.
High Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).

Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide victim support by
conveying the staff’s faith
in their ability to
successfully adapt to a
traditional lifestyle.

Model traditional lifestyle
activities before asking
victims to attempt them.
Have victims start with
simpler life skills first and
provide timely feedback
before moving on to more
complex tasks.
Mood
CSEC victims need to feel
positive about the benefits
of remaining in emergency
housing.
High Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Emphasize to victims that
the facility staff supports
victims’ need for autonomy
and choice while living in
the housing facility.
Attribution
CSEC victims need to
attribute successfully
exiting the life to their own
efforts.
High Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
individuals attribute
success or failure to
effort rather than ability
(Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
Provide feedback to victims
regarding their progress
that stresses the nature of
learning, including the
importance of effort,
strategies, and self-control
of learning.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 112
Value solutions. CSEC victims need to value exiting the life, believing future conditions
can be better than current circumstances (Lloyd, 2012). Eccles (2006) concluded that rationales
that include a discussion of the importance and utility of the work or learning can help learners
develop positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). This would suggest that, if CSEC victims
better understand the benefits of leading a more traditional lifestyle, they might be more inclined
to value pursuing it. The recommendation, then, would be that the organization create
opportunities to discuss the utility value in exiting the life highlighting areas of personal health,
safety, and quality of life.
For many victims, the perceived benefits of exiting the life does exceed the effort
required to pursue it (Kara, 2009; Lloyd, 2012). Utility value as a motivational influence
requires an individual to look at the long-term benefits of their actions (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Helping victims see beyond their current state is a catalyst for creating value. When the value of
a task increases, motivation to achieve it also rises (Eccles, 2006; Wigfield et al., 2009). Many
victims also have children of their own who become driving forces for wanting to exit the life
(Corbett, 2018). By identifying benefits not readily apparent, for victims or those they care
about, value in exiting the life can be increased.
Self-efficacy solutions. CESC victims need to feel confident they can adapt to a
traditional lifestyle (Kara, 2009). Pajares (2006) points out that learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have positive expectations for success. Pajares (2006) goes on to state
that feedback and modeling increase self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006). This would suggest that
expressing confidence in a learner’s ability can help bolster motivation and personal confidence.
Further, demonstrating for learners what they need to know and providing constructive feedback
can increase their self-efficacy. Thus, it is recommended that the organization support victims
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 113
by conveying their faith in the victim’s ability to adapt to a traditional lifestyle. The organization
should demonstrate for victims the behaviors associated with a traditional lifestyle, provide them
opportunities to practice those skillsets, and provide feedback on their performance.
Self-efficacy is situation-specific confidence to cope or be successful (Prochaska &
Velicer, 1997), therefore victims may appear confident in many areas but lack the self-efficacy
not to relapse back into unhealthy behaviors. Pajares (2006) recommends clearly
communicating with individuals that they are capable of learning and performing the desired
tasks. An approach that Clark and Estes (2008) recommends to help learners get started with
challenging tasks is to break them up into smaller and more manageable chunks. This is an
effective way for shelter staff to help victims develop life skills that may initially seem
overwhelming. Borgogni et al. (2011) recommends delivering immediate feedback on simple
tasks and delayed feedback on more complex activities. As the level of mastery increases over
time, so does self-efficacy (Usher & Pajares, 2008).
Mood solutions. CSEC victims need to feel positive about the benefits of remaining in
emergency housing. Mood is a low-intensity emotion that influences cognition (Pekrun et al.,
2002). Angry or depressive moods tend to connect people to negative experiences in their past
and impede their ability to focus on future goals whereas positive emotions serve to increase
motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). This suggests that creating a positive environment for victims
might increase their motivation to remain in housing. The recommendation, then, for the
organization would be to create a positive environment for victims by emphasizing the staff’s
support for victims to have autonomy and choice while living in the housing facility.
CSEC survivors overwhelmingly report that cultivating a positive attitude helps with the
recovery process (Corbett, 2018). Positive emotions increase creative thinking, problem solving,
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 114
socialization, and resilience (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009; Pekrun, et al., 2002). One approach to
enhancing positive emotional environments is by providing autonomy and choice (Bono, Foldes,
Vinson, & Muros, 2007). Affording individuals choice and control helps to activate personal
interest (Schraw & Lehman, 2010). When attempting to create a sense of autonomy and control,
overly competitive structures can impede the desired results (Clark & Estes, 2008; Goette,
Huffman, Meier, & Sutter, 2012). Positive emotions, however, encourage engagement and
participation (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2009). Therefore, it may be constructive to have individuals
work together on difficult tasks from time to time, particularly if they desire to do so (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Attribution solutions. CSEC victims need to attribute successfully exiting the life to
their own efforts. Anderman and Anderman (2006) posit that learning and motivation are
enhanced when individuals attribute success or failure to effort rather than ability. This would
suggest that helping victims connect successfully exiting the life to their own efforts might
increase their motivation to achieve it. The recommendation, then, is for the organization to
provide victims feedback regarding their progress that stresses the nature of learning, including
the importance of effort, strategies, and self-control of learning. Anderman and Anderman
(2006) also stress the need for the feedback to identify the specific knowledge individuals lack,
accompanied by the message the knowledge can be learned, followed by the necessary
instruction to achieve proficiency.
Smith et al. (2009) stress the importance of victims understanding that the conditions in
their lives are not fixed and that they have personal agency to improve their situation.
Individuals who attribute failure to internal factors, such as ability, often experience shame and
humiliation when they are unsuccessful (Graham & Williams, 2009). Individuals who view
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 115
success or failure as a matter of effort often experience increased motivation to achieve and may
feel guilty when their lack of effort results in failure (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Graham &
Williams, 2009). Providing opportunities for victims to make their own decisions, coupled with
feedback, helps promote attribution to effort (Pintrich, 2003; Smith et al., 2009).
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. The following section discusses the assumed organizational influences
determined to be a need as a result of the collected and analyzed data. The study assessed
organizational influences related to CSEC victims’ remaining in housing through the use of
semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and site observations. The results revealed validated
gaps, or needs, affecting CSEC victims that may assist the organization in making informed
decisions that help improve shelter retention rates. Of the assumed influences, the study
identified two policy and procedure needs. The study did not identify resource or culturally
driven needs. Table 13 provides a summary of the organizational influences, priorities, related
principles, and recommendations. Following the table, this section provides a detailed
discussion of each organizational influence, which includes evidence-based recommendations
supported by the literature.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 116
Table 13
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Policies and
Procedures

CSEC needs law
enforcement
policies and
procedures that
are adaptive to
their unique
form of
victimization.
High Effective change begins by
addressing motivation
influencers; it ensures the group
knows why it needs to change.
It then addresses organizational
barriers and then knowledge
and skills needs (Clark & Estes,
2008).

Effective organizations ensure
that organizational messages,
rewards, policies and
procedures that govern the
work of the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide training to local law
enforcement to increase
awareness of how police
policies and procedures
influence CSEC victims’
openness to housing and why
adaptive measures are so
important.

The housing facility will
collaborate with local law
enforcement to conduct an
informal audit of department
policies and procedures to
check for alignment with their
mutual goal of assisting CSEC
victims.
CSEC needs
shelter policies
and procedures
adapted to their
unique form of
victimization.
High Effective organizations ensure
that organizational messages,
rewards, policies and
procedures that govern the
work of the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Effective change efforts ensure
that everyone has the resources
(equipment, personnel, time,
etc.) needed to do their job,
and that if there are resource
shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational
priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Staff administrators will
conduct an informal audit of
the facility’s policies and
procedures to check for
alignment with the
organization’s goal of tailoring
services to the specific needs
of CSEC victims.

Work with staff to develop
organizational priorities for
serving CSEC victims. Ensure
that staff have the necessary
tools, training, and resources
to meet established
expectations.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 117
Policies and procedures solutions. The study identified two policies and procedure
influences determined to be needs for CSEC victims in housing: one related to law enforcement
and the other to shelter staff. The following section addresses both influences and includes a
discussion of the proposed recommendations. The recommendations are evidence-based and
supported by the literature.
Law enforcement policies and procedures. CSEC needs law enforcement policies and
procedures that are adapted to their unique form of victimization. Effective change begins by
addressing motivation influencers to ensure the group knows why it needs to change. Then
organizational barriers are addressed prior to knowledge and skills needs (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Effective organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies and procedures
that govern the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). This suggests that educating law enforcement as to why
policy changes are needed, followed by supportive training, could help promote effective
change. The recommendation, then, is to provide training to local law enforcement to increase
awareness of how police policies and procedures influence CSEC victims’ openness to housing
and why adaptive measures are so important. The organization would follow up with law
enforcement agencies to conduct informal audits of policies and procedures to check for
alignment with their mutual goal of assisting CSEC victims.
Properly aligned policies and procedures help individuals achieve organizational goals
(Rueda, 2011). To comply with policies and procedures, individuals may require specialized
training. It is essential that those working with human trafficking victims, for example, receive
comprehensive training regarding intervention techniques (Mapp, Hornung, D’Almeida, &
Juhnke, 2016). Farrell and Pfeffer (2014) recommend that law enforcement develop proficiency
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 118
in the trauma-informed and victim-centered approach to working with CESC victims, both to
protect the victims and to preserve the integrity of the investigation. Change can be difficult for
many people, resulting in a reluctance to alter methods without a compelling reason (Elmore,
2002). Explaining to officers the extent and influence their actions have on CESC victims may
help open their minds to alternative approaches that enhance the organizational culture by
creating a shift from a criminal mindset to one that is victim-centered. Survivors can serve as a
credible source to help law enforcement agencies develop policies and procedures that
incorporate the unique needs of the CSEC population (President’s Interagency Task Force to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, 2014).
Shelter policies and procedures. CSEC victims need shelter policies and procedures
adapted to their unique form of victimization. Clark and Estes (2008) state that effective
organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies and procedures that govern
the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of organizational goals and
values. Clark and Estes (2008) further indicate that effective change efforts need to ensure that
everyone has the resources (equipment, personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and, if
resource shortages exist, the available resources needs to align with the organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This suggests the organization could maximize effectiveness by aligning
policies and procedures with organizational goals and ensuring the goals are supported with the
necessary resources. It is recommended that staff administrators audit the facility’s policies and
procedures to check for alignment with the organization’s goal of addressing the needs of CSEC
victims. Staff should also develop CSEC related priorities and ensure that staff have the
necessary tools, training, and resources to meet established expectations.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 119
Rueda (2011) highlights the significant impact organizational policies and procedures
have on individuals and groups to achieve their goals. Similarly, shelter policies need to adjust
for the unique form of victimization CSEC experience to be effective. Shelter intake procedures,
for example, should be sensitive to the physical, psychological, and emotional needs of victims
(Smith et al., 2009). The facility’s policies and procedures should be restrictive enough to
discourage victims from leaving without precluding runaway victims from returning to the
shelter when they are ready (Judicial Council of California, 2017). A recommended practice to
ensure policies and procedures are responsive to the needs of CSEC victims is to involve
survivors in the development process (President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons, 2014).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The organizational goal of the RCSSA is to achieve a 100% CSEC victim retention rate
by December 2021 in its emergency shelter while these victims await long-term housing options.
For the organization to be successful, all CSEC victims need to achieve their goal of remaining
in the shelter until appropriately placed in long-term housing. The purpose of this study was to
conduct a needs assessment of CSEC victims residing in the county shelter to identify
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impeding retention. The results in Chapter
Four inform the organization of areas of support victims perceive as not being met. Based on the
data analysis, the study makes recommendations to address the perceived shortcomings and
enhance services to victims. The expectation then is that by implementing the identified
recommendations, shelter staff can better support victims in achieving their goal, thus positively
affecting shelter retention rates.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 120
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016) relies on the
same four levels of assessment found in the original model to measure a training program’s
success. The levels are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. The new model makes a
substantial departure from the previous model by starting with the end in mind. Placing more
emphasis on the degree to which the program achieves outcomes, the new model now begins the
planning process with Level 4 and works down. Implementation of the plan then occurs in
reverse order. Level 4 assesses the degree to which the program, and subsequent reinforcements,
generate desired results. Level 3 involves transfer, or the degree to which participants apply
what they learn in the workplace. Level 2 reflects the degree to which participants learn the
intended knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the program while Level 1 captures the overall
satisfaction experienced by participants. The following section evaluates all four levels of the
model as they relate to the performance gap experienced by the RCSSA in efforts to retain CSEC
victims in emergency housing.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 uses leading indicators to gauge the level of impact training and support have on
the intended outcomes. Leading indicators, both external and internal, are observable
measurements that track the effect of critical behaviors on the desired outcomes (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Proposed external indicators are an increase in awareness on the street
regarding the positive impacts of housing for CSEC victims and the number of victims receiving
permanent housing placements. External indicators also include a reduction in the number of
CSEC victims recruited from the shelter and vulnerable to exploitation. Internal indicators
include increased class sizes for shelter programs, an increase in survivor advocates, greater
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 121
collaboration between staff and law enforcement, increased requests for training by law
enforcement, and fewer shelter-related reports of runaway youth. Table 14 details the leading
indicator outcomes, metrics, and methods.
Table 14
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase in the number of
CSEC victims receiving
permanent housing
placements.
Number of permanent housing
placements for CSEC victims.
Riverview County Social
Services Agency Annual
Report.
Reduction in the number
of CSEC victims
vulnerable to exploitation.
Number of CSEC victims who
chose to remain in housing.
Query of shelter database.
Reduction in the number
of individuals recruited by
CSEC victims in housing.
Number of youths who leave the
shelter with documented CSEC
victims.
Query of shelter database; staff
reports and security logs.
Increased awareness on
the street regarding the
successful impacts of
emergency housing.
Number of CSEC victims who
report knowledge of shelter
opportunities during intake.
Query of shelter intake records.
Internal Outcomes
Increase in the class sizes
for programs supporting
CSEC recovery.
Number of CSEC victims in
attendance in shelter recovery
programs.
Query of shelter program logs.
Increase in the number of
survivors-advocates
available to assist CSEC
victims.
Number of survivors who sign
up as volunteer advocates.
Query of shelter database.
Increased collaboration
between shelter staff and
local law enforcement.
Number of requests for agency
assistance with CSEC, or
potential CESC, cases.
Query of shelter database.
Increase in requests by
local law enforcement for
CSEC related training.
Number of training classes
requested by local law
enforcement.
Query of shelter training logs.
Reduction in the number
of shelter-related reports
filed for runaway youth.
Number of runaway reports filed
compared to previous year.
Query of shelter database.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 122
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3 measures the critical behaviors of the stakeholders of focus.
Critical behaviors are observable actions, which, if performed correctly and consistently, have
the greatest impact on achieving desired outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In this
study, the stakeholder of focus was CSEC victims living in the county shelter. CSEC victims
must consistently perform the following critical behaviors: refrain from leaving the shelter
without authorization, participate in counseling sessions focused on CSEC victim recovery, and
cooperate with staff attempting to secure long-term housing placements. Table 15 outlines the
critical behaviors for CSEC victims and the metrics, methods, and timelines to assess them.
Table 15
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Refrain from leaving
the emergency shelter
without authorization.
Number of CSEC
victims leaving the
shelter without
authorization.
Record query of AWOL
victims in the CSEC
housing section.
Daily
Participate in
counseling sessions
focused on CSEC
victim recovery.
Number of CSEC
victims attending
recovery-focused
counseling sessions.
Record query of
counselor’s log
indicating attended
counseling sessions by
CSEC victims.
Weekly
Cooperate with staff
attempting to secure
long-term housing
placements.
Number of CESC
victims who are
receptive to staff
assisting them with
housing placements.
CESC department staff
meeting.

Query of Agency
records of pending and
completed housing
placements.
Weekly

Required drivers. This study conducted a needs assessment of CSEC victims living in
the county shelter. The purpose was to inform a comprehensive program that educates staff in
best practices for supporting the critical behaviors of victims, which leads to improved retention
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 123
rates. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) highlighted the need for drivers to provide support and
accountability for achieving critical behaviors. Required drivers are actions that promote and
sustain these critical behaviors through reinforcement, encouragement, rewards, and monitoring
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 16 presents the recommended drivers for the
organization to promote the critical behaviors of victims as the stakeholders of focus in the study.
Thus, by driving the behaviors of the victims by the shelter staff, the organization ultimately
supports CSEC victim’s ability to achieve their critical behaviors.
Table 16
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Victims as Stakeholders
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Review the policies and procedures for CSEC
victims living in the county shelter.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Provide job aids containing house rules and
expectations for those living in the shelter.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Provide updates regarding long-term housing
placement opportunities for CSEC.
Ongoing 3
Encouraging
Encourage victims to participate in counseling
sessions focused on CSEC victim recovery.
Ongoing 2
Provide CSEC victims the opportunities to work
with CSEC survivors.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Recognize persistent efforts by CSEC victims to
achieve survivorship.
Ongoing 2, 3
Recognize CSEC victims when they model
desired behaviors for other victims.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Recognize milestones for CSEC victims
participating in shelter programs.
Ongoing 2
Monitoring
Staff should observe CSEC victim’s behavior
while living in the shelter.
Ongoing 1, 2
Inquire of CSEC victims as to how their shelter
experience is going.
Daily 1, 2, 3
Review the individual progress of CSEC victims
living in the shelter.
Weekly 2, 3
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 124
Organizational support. To achieve the organization’s goal relative to meeting the
needs of CSEC victims as the stakeholder of focus, and to support their critical behaviors, the
staff, in turn, will require support from the organization. Derived from the organizational
recommendations in Table 16, the organization will need to provide staff with the support in the
form of required drivers shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Required Drivers for Staff
Method(s) Timing
Reinforcing
Provide staff with updates regarding current trends for
CSEC going AWOL.
Weekly
Review policies and procedures for working with CSEC
living in the shelter.
Monthly
Review counseling procedures for maximizing
effectiveness. Quality interaction, not just time on task.
Quarterly
Provide staff job aids with updated resources for securing
long-term housing for CSEC.
Quarterly
Encouraging
Encourage staff to reach out to supervisors and peers for
help when needed.
Weekly meetings
Provide staff opportunities to partner with other
departments to gain expertise.
Ongoing
Rewarding
Recognize staff at the annual awards banquet who made
significant contributions to improving retention rates.
Yearly
Recognize staff who are modeling important life skills for
CSEC victims.
Ongoing
Recognize persistent efforts by staff working with challenge
CSEC cases.
Ongoing
Monitoring
Supervisors should observe staff working with CSEC
victims.
Ongoing (as often as practical)
Review employees progress notes for CSEC participating in
shelter programs.
Weekly
Review supervision file for each staff member to verify
required training is current.
Yearly

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 125
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. To support CSEC victims’ knowledge and motivation needs shown in
Tables 11 and 12 for living in emergency housing, shelter staff need to achieve the following
goals:
1. Describe best practices to help CSEC understand housing expectations. (D-F)
2. Demonstrate for CSEC how to participate in the available programs. (D-P)
3. Explain how to create value for CSEC in exiting the life. (V)
4. Demonstrate providing feedback that reinforces effort rather than ability. (A)
5. Demonstrate modeling traditional lifestyle activities for victims. (SE)
6. Explain how to break down complex skills for CSEC to build confidence. (SE)
7. Describe ways to promote autonomy and choice for CSEC. (M)
8. Organize factors for CSEC that separate victims from survivors. (D-C)
Program. The following 8-hour training workshop will help shelter staff achieve the
learning goals identified in the previous section. The learning goals derive from the analysis of
perceived knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of CSEC victims and the subsequent
context-specific recommendations. Training may take place at the county shelter or an off-site
facility with an estimated class size of 25 to 30. The course includes interactive modules that
require staff participation. Mastery of the course material will provide essential knowledge and
resources for staff to support CSEC victims in achieving their critical behaviors.
The first two hours of training will consist of introductions, a course overview, current
trends related to CSEC, and an exploration of factors contributing to the low retention rates of
CSEC victims living in shelters. To support the learning block, instructors will use a pre-test,
lectures, knowledge checks, and discussion groups. During the second two-hour block, an
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 126
instructor will lead a guided discussion with a panel of CSEC survivors, providing a victims’
perspective on shelter retention. Staff will have the opportunity to ask questions of the panel
following the guided discussion.
The afternoon session will also consist of two training blocks. The first two-hour block
will present strategies to help staff address knowledge and motivational factors that contribute to
low retention of CSEC victims. Instructors will use lectures, discussions, and brainstorming
exercises to support the learning goals in this section. The last training block of the day involves
interactive scenarios. Instructors will demonstrate critical skills related to the learning goals and
provide staff opportunities to practice them. At the end of each scenario, staff will receive
constructive feedback from peers and instructors.
The training day will conclude with a question and answer review followed by a post-test
covering the material learned in class. The instructors will furnish staff with job aids and
additional resources material to use in the workplace. Each staff member will complete an
evaluation for the course.
Evaluation of the components of learning. In addition to acquiring knowledge and
skills, staff need a positive attitude, confidence, and a commitment to the job to support CSEC
victims living in shelters. As Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) point out, training that lacks
transferability to the workplace is of little value. As such, Table 18 lists the evaluation methods
and timing for assessing the learning components of the program.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 127
Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it. ”
Knowledge checks of common reasons CSEC
report going AWOL from shelters
During and after
Knowledge checks of best practices to help
CSEC victims understand shelter rules and
expectations
During and after
Think and share out ways to help CSEC
victims connect housing with survivorship
During
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now. ”
Scenario that allows staff members to
demonstrate helping CSEC victims build
personal value exiting the life
During
Scenario that allow staff members to
demonstrate providing feedback that
reinforces effort rather than ability
During
Peer feedback after scenarios During class, post demonstrations
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile. ”
Brainstorm the positive and negative of
autonomy and choice for CSEC victims
During
Discussion about persisting through
challenging sessions with CSEC victims
During
Discussion about collaborating with other
agencies to enhance services to CSEC victims
During
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job. ”
Discussion about barriers that may arise when
dealing with uncooperative victims
During
Q & A about ways to model traditional
lifestyle behaviors for CSEC victims
During
Q & A about how to break down complex life
skills for CSEC victims to build confidence.
During
Pre- and Post-test assessment survey to
determine attendee’s confidence in their
ability to positively impact CSEC retention
rates
Before and after course
Commitment “I will do it on the job. ”
Self-report of the progress After
Ask staff members to share a tool or
technique learned during the course that they
can immediately apply in the workplace

After

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 128
Level 1: Reaction
The following section assesses staff members’ reactions to the training program.
Consistent with the New World Kirkpatrick approach, this level measures engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction for those receiving the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Table 19 lists the proposed measurements and timing to assess reactions to the program.
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance records Beginning of class (sign-in sheet)
Completion of practical application scenarios During class
Asking meaningful questions/making
comments that contribute to the discussion
During class
Relevance
Pulse check for application of content Throughout class
Course Evaluation After class

Customer Satisfaction
Dedicated observer who gauges attendee’s
commentary and body language
During class
Course Evaluation After class

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. This workshop will use
immediate and delayed evaluation tools to critique the program. Using immediate evaluation
tools at the end of a training session, such as a post-program survey, generally results in a high
participation rate and is a quick and efficient means of evaluating reaction and learning
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). At the conclusion of the workshop, participants will
complete a course evaluation regarding their experience (Appendix D). The evaluation uses a
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 129
survey format to assess the relevance of the course materials for shelter staff as well as individual
attitudes, confidence, commitment, and overall satisfaction related to the workshop.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) also suggest that new programs may benefit from the
use of a dedicated observer to watch the training session and gauge the class dynamics. This
workshop will recruit a supervisor or peer to serve as a designated observer to help assess the
overall effectiveness of the instruction. The observer will complete an evaluation form rating the
instruction and offering feedback (Appendix E). Throughout the workshop, the instructor will
conduct pulse checks to gauge understanding and to validate relevance to real world conditions
that participants face. Instructor observations and peer feedback after the structured scenarios
will add to the evaluation process, providing insight into (Level 2) knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Participants will receive a
delayed evaluation approximately 90 days after the workshop. Delayed evaluation tools allow
course participants time to apply new skill sets on the job, which may alter their perceptions of
the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To evaluate the levels, Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend the use of blended evaluation tools, which leverage multiple
methods to assess all four levels at the same time. The delayed evaluation for this program is a
survey containing open and scaled items (Appendix F). The survey captures the participants’
perception of course satisfaction and relevance in connection to serving CSEC victims in shelters
(Level 1), knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment to applying the material
(Level 2), application of the learned material in the workplace (Level 3), and the extent to which
the program positively affects shelter programs and retention rates (Level 4).
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 130
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Riverview County Shelter website will serve as the medium for reporting all findings
on a quarterly and annual basis. Findings will appear in a dashboard format that is easy to access
and follow (Appendix G). In addition to revealing findings, dashboards also serve as a means
both to drive performance and to draw early attention to potential problems (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The primary dashboard will allow the county and other stakeholders to view
results related to CSEC remaining in the shelter facility, successful long-term housing
placements, and participation by CSEC in counseling programs. The dashboard will also reveal
fluctuations in survivors volunteering as advocates and runaway youth reports filed by the
shelter. A secondary dashboard monitoring Levels 1 and 2 will be created and made available to
shelter administrators. The second dashboard will include staff members’ reported levels of
attitude, confidence, engagement, satisfaction, and commitment to assisting CSEC in the county
shelter.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The New World Kirkpatrick Model served as the framework for developing,
implementing, and evaluating this program to help the Riverview County Social Services
Agency improve the retention rates of CSEC victims in their shelter. Knowledge, motivation,
and organizational data, which the researcher collected and analyzed ahead of time, informed the
program’s needs. The research gave CSEC victims a voice on the topic of shelter retention rates;
the program provided an avenue for the organization to address the perceived knowledge,
motivation, organizational needs identified by CSEC victims throughout the study.
Developing the evaluation plan began with Level 4, which focuses on the degree to
which outcomes occur as a result of the training and reinforcement. The process identified
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 131
internal and external outcomes, metrics, and methods, to measure the intended results.
Evaluating Level 3 required examining the critical behaviors that CSEC victims need to perform
and developed metrics, methods, and measures for those actions. Also identified were required
drivers to support the critical behaviors of the CSEC victims living in the shelter. Because the
intent of the program was to educate staff based on data collected from the stakeholder of focus,
the victims, it was important to identify required drivers for the staff as well to support them in
their effort to help victims achieve critical behaviors. Level 2 created learning goals that staff
must achieve to properly support the victims. Lastly, Level 1 established the means to measure
the engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction of staff members receiving the training.
The program makes use of immediate and delayed evaluation tools after the workshop.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stress the importance, though, of gathering and analyzing
data throughout the training process to identify shortcomings that may jeopardize the desired
results. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), offer three guiding questions to reflect on during
program implementation: “Does…meet expectations? If not, why not? If so, why?” (p. 122).
The first question helps instructors assess whether the training is on track to achieve the desired
results. The second two questions allow instructors to reinforce what is working well and to
selectively target components that need adjustments.
In keeping with Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) recommendations, several
opportunities exist within the program to gauge reaction and learning. Instructors should
conduct pulse checks and ask participants open-ended questions throughout the training session.
Through the use of surveys, the evaluation process offers a means to examine staff’s behavior
and results as well. The surveys will produce information regarding the extent to which staff
applies the learned material on the job, the degree to which CSEC victims complete critical
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 132
behaviors, and the level of success the organization experiences as a result of the program. The
evaluations also open the door to identifying emerging barriers and the tools, training, and
resources needed to overcome them.
Lastly, a dashboard on the county’s website will serve as a medium to report data and
analysis related to critical behaviors on a quarterly and annual basis. Dashboards lend
themselves to cross-functional reviews and are known for their potential to drive performance
and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). All shelter stakeholders will have access to the
dashboard, which may expand contributions leading to achieving desired results. A secondary
dashboard will be available to shelter administrators reporting results related to staff attitude,
confidence, engagement, satisfaction, and commitment.
Limitations and Delimitations
CSEC is a clandestine business and access to credible victims willing to share their
stories is limited. The legal and ethical parameters of the study, while necessary, restricted
access to the CSEC population even further. All participants in the study were adults reflecting
back on shelter experiences as minors. For some participants, the experiences were recent, and,
for others, the experience occurred several years prior. Over time, shelter policies and
procedures change, and, thus, responses may not reflect current conditions. It is also possible
that the trauma of a victim’s exploitation, combined with the passage of time, may influence
perception and recollection of facts. There is always a risk that the selected participants do not
accurately represent the entire population (Clark & Estes, 2008). Because each victim’s journey
is unique, their individual responses may not reflect that of the entire CSEC community.
Another potential limitation is the positionality of the researcher. Although not directly
connected to human trafficking enforcement, the researcher works in a law enforcement capacity
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 133
and has occasional interactions with the CSEC victim population. An employment background
in law enforcement creates potential unforeseen biases and assumptions about the population.
As with all research, it is important to apply a critical eye and honest effort towards eliminating
potential bias or subjectivity of the researcher (Maxwell, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Acknowledging preconceptions about the CSEC populations helped minimize bias
interpretations of the participant’s remarks.
Lastly, the design of the study itself restricted the results to some extent. Due to the
sensitive nature of the research topic, the study recruited participants anonymously and restricted
the use of questions related to victimization. The study did not inquire about the age victims
entered the life, recruitment methods used, years of victimization, the extent of physical and
sexual abuse, or victims’ relationship with their trafficker. These factors may shed additional
light on victims’ reluctance to remain in emergency shelters and help further the understanding
of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences associated with their decisions.
Further, the scope of the study centered on one stakeholder: the victims. A comprehensive study
would include multiple stakeholders, some of which may offer a very different perspective on
shelter retention rates.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research should attempt to address the limitations identified in this study. One
recommendation is to incorporate more of the victim’s background into the study.
Understandably, this is a sensitive topic, and disclosing additional information may generate
discomfort for some participants. Factors such as the age a victim entered the life, circumstances
surrounding their recruitment, type of physical and sexual abuse endured, duration of abuse, and
relationship with their trafficker all affect the individual journey of each victim. These
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 134
conditions may significantly affect a victim’s response and acceptance of shelter life and should
be considered for inclusion in future studies.
Next, future research should include other stakeholders in the equation. For practical
purposes, this study focused only on one stakeholder: the victims. Victims’ responses proved
valuable and served to develop a program to educate staff in a manner likely to improve shelter
retention rates for CESC victims. There are numerous stakeholders involved in the long-term
care of CSEC victims, both in and out of housing. A comprehensive study that involves multiple
stakeholders may provide a more holistic approach to shelter retention than viewing it through a
single lens.
Finally, future research should consider focusing on male victims of commercial sexual
exploitation. Although most research suggests CSEC victims tend to be female, emerging
literature recognizes the existence of a larger population of male victims than previously thought
(Offices of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014). Research should include
barriers to identifying male victims and how shelters might best accommodate their individual
needs. Male victims may experience entirely different knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs than female victims when placed in housing.
Conclusion
This study explored the perceived barriers leading to the low retention rates of CSEC
victims in the RCSSA shelter. This improvement model approach provided the means of
conducting a needs assessment of the victims to inform the study. By applying the Clark and
Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework, the study examined assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of the victims to determine assets and needs affecting shelter retention
rates. Using interviews, a focus group, and site observations, the study determined that needs
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 135
exist in the knowledge, motivation, and organizational categories. These findings served to
inform the organization of areas requiring attention to meet the needs of CSEC victims in their
shelter.
The study proposed solutions for each of the established needs and provided evidence-
based recommendations supported by academic literature. Recommendations resulted in a
proposed workshop to develop staff members’ knowledge and motivation so that they might
better support the needs of CSEC victims in their shelter. The program developed for the
workshop relied on The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to
create training and evaluation activities. Several opportunities were built into the
implementation and evaluation process that afford instructors the ability to gauge program
effectiveness, take corrective action, and maximize learning.
While a comprehensive analysis of shelter retention rates would reflect viewpoints from
all stakeholders, this study focused on giving a greater voice to the victims. It is the victims who
ultimately choose to remain in the shelter or run away, a decision that directly affects shelter
retention rates. The research and findings in this study contribute to the nation-wide effort to end
the cycle of exploitation experienced by so many youths. The recommendations provided above
may also help to inform organizations developing similar programs dedicated to serving the
CSEC victim population.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 136
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (1st
ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Ark of Hope for Children. (2017). Child trafficking statistics. Retrieved from
http://arkofhopeforchildren.org/child-trafficking/child-trafficking-statistics
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K.
Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83–102). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bandura, A (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Retrieved from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanduraGuide2006.pdf
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L
Bennett, T., Williamson, G., Spangler, S., & Jimenez, C. (2017). Orange county continuum of
care 2017 homeless count & survey report. Santa Ana, CA: 211 Orange County.
Retrieved from https://www.211oc.org/images/PIT-Final-Report-2017-072417.pdf
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 137
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of
supervision and leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357–1367.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357
Bouché, V., & Shady, S. (2017). A pimp’s game: A rational choice approach to understanding
the decisions of sex traffickers. Women & Criminal Justice, 27(2), 91–108.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1250701
California Department of Social Services. (2019a). Foster family agencies. Retrieved from
http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Continuum-of-Care-Reform/FFA
California Department of Social Services. (2019b). Short-term residential therapeutic program.
Retrieved from http://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/Continuum-of-Care-Reform/Short-
Term-Residential-Therapeutic-Program
Carpenter, A., & Gates, J. (2015). Measuring the nature and extent of gang involvement in sex
trafficking in San Diego. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249857.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 138
Cohn, M., & Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positive emotions. The Oxford handbook of positive
psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0003
Corbett, A. (2018). The voices of survivors: An exploration of the contributing factors that
assisted with exiting from commercial sexual exploitation in childhood. Children and
Youth Services Review, 85, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.12.009
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Davy, D. (2015). Understanding the support needs of human-trafficking victims: A review of
three human-trafficking program evaluations. Journal of Human Trafficking, 1(4), 318–
337. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2015.1090865
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benson, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
education.com
Destiny Rescue. (2019). Child sex trafficking field guide. Retrieved from
https://www.destinyrescue.org/us/files/2019/06/Destiny-Rescue-Trafficking-Field-Guide-
Awarness-to-Action.pdf
Dye, H. (2018). The impact and long-term effects of childhood trauma. Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(3), 381–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1435328
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivation-theory
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. In C. M. Grant, V. L. Mills, M. Bouck, E.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 139
Davidson (Eds.), Secondary lenses on learning participant book: Team leadership for
mathematics in middle and high schools (pp. 313–344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Estes, R. J., & Weiner, N. A. (2001). The commercial sexual exploitation of children in the US,
Canada and Mexico. Philadelphia, PA: Center for the Study of Youth Policy.
Farley, M., Baral, I., Kiremire, M., & Sezgin, U. (1998). Prostitution in five countries: Violence
and post-traumatic stress disorder. Feminism & Psychology, 8(4), 405–426.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353598084002
Farrell, A., & Pfeffer, R. (2014). Policing human trafficking: Cultural blinders and organizational
barriers. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 653(1),
46–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213515835
Farrell, A., Pfeffer, R., & Bright, K. (2015). Police perceptions of human trafficking. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 38(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.995412
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Finklea, K. (2014). Juvenile victims of domestic sex trafficking: Juvenile justice issues.
Congressional research service. Retrieved from
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461935/
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Goette, L., Huffman, D., Meier, S., & Sutter, M. (2012). Competition between organizational
groups: Its impact on altruistic and antisocial motivations. Management Science, 58(5),
948–960. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1466
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 140
Greenblatt, M., & Robertson, M. J. (1993). Life-styles, adaptive strategies, and sexual behaviors
of homeless adolescents. Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), 44(12), 1177–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.44.12.1177
Graham, S., & Williams, C. (2009). An attributional approach to motivation in school. In K. R.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 11–33). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hanna, C. (2002). Somebody’s daughter: The domestic trafficking of girls for the commercial
sex industry and the power of love. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law,
9(1), 1–30.
Hepburn, S., & Simon, R. J. (2010). Hidden in plain sight: Human trafficking in the United
States. Gender Issues, 27(1-2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-010-9087-7
Horning, A. (2013). Peeling the onion: Domestically trafficked minors and other sex work
involving youth. Dialectical Anthropology, 37(2), 299–307.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-012-9289-3
Ivy, K., & Hunter, K. (2007). Pimpology: The 48 laws of the game. New York, NY: Simon
Spotlight Entertainment.
Jahan, S. (2017). Human development report 2016 - human development for everyone. St. Louis:
Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.
Jordan, J., Patel, B., & Rapp, L. (2013). Domestic minor sex trafficking: A social work
perspective on misidentification, victims, buyers, traffickers, treatment, and reform of
current practice. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(3), 356–369.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.764198
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 141
Judicial Council of California. (2017). Human trafficking in California: Toolkit for judicial
officers Retrieved from www.courts.ca.gov/documents/human-trafficking-toolkit-
cfcc.pdf
Kara, S. (2009). Sex trafficking: Inside the business of modern slavery. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2015). An introduction to the New World Kirkpatrick Model.
Newman, GA: Kirkpatrick Partners.
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick ’s four levels of training and evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F. & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://education.com
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lichtman, M. (2017). A review of additional research approaches. Qualitative Research for the
Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544307756
Liles, B., Blacker, D., Landini, J., & Urquiza, A. (2016). A California multidisciplinary juvenile
court: Serving sexually exploited and at‐risk youth. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
34(1), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2230
Lloyd, R. (2012). Girls like us: Fighting for a world where girls are not for sale: A memoir. New
York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Loomba, A. P. (2017). Reconstructing lives: Transformative services for human trafficking
survivors. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4/5), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-
06-2016-0228
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 142
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In K.
R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77–104). New
York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Mapp, S., Hornung, E., D’Almeida, M., & Juhnke, J. (2016). Law enforcement officers’
knowledge of human trafficking: Ability to define, identify, and assist. Journal of Human
Trafficking, 2(4), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2016.1143764
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McGough, M. (2013). Ending modern-day slavery: Using research to inform U.S. anti-human
trafficking efforts. Washington, DC: National Institute for Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.nij.gov/journals/271/Pages/anti-human-trafficking.aspx
Meads, L. (2017). Fulfilling the safe harbor promise: Enhancing resources for sexually-exploited
youth to create a true victim-centered approach. Law & Inequality, 35(1), 105–106.
Mehlman-Orozco, K. (2015). Safe Harbor policies for juvenile victims of sex trafficking: A
myopic view of improvements in practice. Social Inclusion, 3(1), 52–62.
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v3i1.56
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mitchell, K., Moynihan, M., Pitcher, C., Francis, A., English, A., & Saewyc, E. (2017).
Rethinking research on sexual exploitation of boys: Methodological challenges and
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 143
recommendations to optimize future knowledge generation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 66,
142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.019
The National Center for Homeless Education. (2017). The commercial sexual exploitation of
children. Retrieved from https://nche.ed.gov/downloads/Webinar/csec.pdf
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (2019). Commercial sexual exploitation of
children: Fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/CCSE_Fact_Sheet.pdf
National Institute of Justice. (2017). Human trafficking. Retrieved from
https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/human-trafficking/pages/welcome.aspx
Nemeroff, C. B. (2004). Neurobiological consequences of childhood trauma. The Journal of
Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 18–28.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Commercial sexual exploitation
of children/sex trafficking. Literature review. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/CSECSexTrafficking.pdf
Okech, D., Morreau, W., & Benson, K. (2011). Human trafficking: Improving victim
identification and service provision. International Social Work, 55(4), 488–503.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872811425805
Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force. (2017). Human trafficking victim report.
Retrieved from https://www.egovlink.com/ochumantrafficking/docs/menu/home.asp
Orange County Social Services Agency. (2019). Social services agency annual report. Retrieved
from http://ssa.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=61674
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory Retrieved from
http://education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 144
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic Emotions in students’ self-
regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.
Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. (2014). The
federal strategic action plan on services for victims of human trafficking in the United
States. Retrieved from
https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/FederalHumanTraffickingStrategicPlan.pdf
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-
1171-12.1.38
Polaris Project. (2017). Sex trafficking. Retrieved from https://polarisproject.org/human-
trafficking
Reid, J. (2010). Doors wide shut: Barriers to the successful delivery of victim services for
domestically trafficked minors in a southern U.S. metropolitan area. Women & Criminal
Justice, 20(1-2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974451003641206
Reid, J. A. (2016). Entrapment and enmeshment schemes used by sex traffickers. Sexual Abuse,
28(6), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214544334
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 145
Reid, J. & Jones, S. (2011). Exploited vulnerability: Legal and psychological perspectives on
child sex trafficking victims. Victims & offenders, 6(2), 207–231
https://doi.org/101080/15564886.2011.557327
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Schraw, G. & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization (1st ed.).
New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. (2015). Victim or survivor: Terminology from investigation
through prosecution. Retrieved from https://www.sakitta.org/toolkit/docs/Victim-or-
Survivor-Terminology-from-Investigation-Through-Prosecution.pdf
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2010). Interest. Retrieved from education.com
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Shelter, L. (2014, July 3). Knowing the language of human trafficking: A glossary of sex
trafficking terms. In Public Safety. Retrieved from
https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/07/know-the-language-of-human-trafficking-a-glossary-
of-sex-trafficking-terms/
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 146
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–
189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Smith, L., Vardaman, S. H., & Snow, M. (2009). The national report on domestic minor sex
trafficking: America ’s prostituted children. Retrieved from https://scholar-google-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&q=the+national+report+on+do
mestic+minor+sex+trafficking&btnG=
The State of California. (2017). California Penal Code. Retrieved from
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Education.com.
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental
immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. The American
Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009
Stotts, E., Jr., & Ramey, L. (2009). Human trafficking: A call for counselor awareness and
action. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 48(1), 36–
47. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2009.tb00066.x
Todres, J. (2010). Taking prevention seriously: Developing a comprehensive response to child
trafficking and sexual exploitation. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43(1), 1–
56. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1544301
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386 (2000)
Tyler, K., & Beal, M. (2010). The high-risk environment of homeless young adults:
Consequences for physical and sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(1), 101–
115. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.1.101
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 147
The United Nations Development Program. (2016). Human development report. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org
U. S. Department of Education. (2015). Trafficking in American Schools Report. Retrieved from
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/Human
TraffickinginAmericasSchools.pdf
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Human trafficking into and within the
United States: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: Author.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/75891/index.pdf
U. S. Department of State. (2000). Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. Retrieved
from https://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/61124.htm
U. S. Department of State. (2017). Trafficking in persons report: What is trafficking in persons?
Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2017/271112.htm
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the
literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-
2297(92)90011-P
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-Value Theory. In K. R. Wenzel &
A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77–104). New York, NY, US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 148
Williams, L. (2010). Harm and resilience among prostituted teens: Broadening our understanding
of victimization and survival. Social Policy and Society, 9(2), 243–254.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746409990376
Young, M. & Anderman, E. (2009). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from education.com

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 149
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 150

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 151

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 152

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 153

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 154
APPENDIX B
Guiding Questions for Interviews/Focus Group
1. Were you ever placed in emergency housing as a CSEC victim?
Probes: How many times? Did you ever run away from the facility/leave without permission?

2. Prior to entering housing, were you aware of any rights you had as a victim?
Probes: Who advised you? When? (police/advocate/housing facility)

3. When you were being placed in housing for the first time, how did you anticipate that
housing would affect your quality of life?
Probe: How do you define quality of life? What about other times in housing?

4. Did you know what the facility expectations were for you when you entered housing?
Probes: How did you know? Who told you? From prior experiences? Were the house rules
clear? How did the rules make you feel?

5. When you were first contacted by authorities as a victim, did you know how to communicate
your needs with them?
Probes: Were there risks/barriers to asking for help? With police/facility staff? Fears?

6. Looking back, what are some ways CSEC can participate in their own recovery process?
Probes: What processes helped you grow stronger? Did housing support those processes for
you? How?

7. Prior to entering emergency housing, did you reflect on what it would be like to be free?
Probes: Were there consequences to being free? Worry about friends, family, money, primp?
Did those concerns change over time with subsequent stays in housing?

8. What does it mean to you to be a survivor?
Probes: How do you know when you have achieved it? How are you different?

9. What things did you value when you were first contacted as a CSEC victim?
Probes: Did you value exiting the life? Did your values change with subsequent visits to
housing? How? Who/what influenced a change in values?

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 155
10. Describe your confidence level at being able to adapt to a traditional lifestyle when you
entered housing?
Probe: What affected your confidence? How was your confidence different over time?

11. How did your experiences with police, advocates, or facility staff affect your confidence?
Probes: Increase/decrease? Impactful actions, comments, attitudes?

12. Describe how you felt about the idea of staying in an emergency shelter? (first time if
multiply stays)
Probes: Can you name the strongest emotion you felt? Did your feelings ever change, why?
What about the time you decided to stay? What, if anything, contributed to a change in
mindset?

13. What do you believe are the main factors contributing to your success as a survivor?
Probe: (If multiple attempts) What are the reasons you feel that kept you from successfully
exiting the life in the past?

14. Describe your feelings about your ability to persist through challenges as a survivor today?
Probes: Do you still experience challenges today related to your experiences with CSEC?
What pushes you to the edge today? What brings you back? What are your anchors?

15. When you were first contacted as a CSEC victim, how did you feel about your ability to
persist through the challenges of exiting the life?
Probes: Overwhelmed? Determined? Didn’t want to exit?

16. Re-adjusting to a traditional lifestyle is not easy and often takes time. How did you feel
others would view your shortcomings, or mistakes, along the way?
Probes: Did you feel you would be supported to learn from your mistakes? Feel like you
might be judged? By whom? Did you worry about what others might think? Did this change
over time? Why?

17. Describe your access to victim advocates while in emergency housing.
Probes: In what ways did the advocates assist you? How, if at all, did the advocates influence
your decision to remain in emergency housing? What else, if anything, could they have done
to encourage you to stay?

18. Describe your experience when you were contacted by law enforcement (prior to being
placed in housing the first time).
HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 156
Probes: Where/what, was the setting? How were you contacted/detained? Handcuffed,
searched, fingerprinted? Were you transported in a police car? Front or back of the unit?
Were there other victims with you? Did anyone get arrested?

19. How did your contact with law enforcement make you feel?
Probes: Were they empathetic? Did you feel like they were there to help you? How so? How
did the experience influence your mindset, if at all, about going to a county shelter?

20. How did your contact with the police affect your level of empowerment?
Probes: Did you feel like you had control over what was happening? How so? What things, if
any, were you asked about concerning your needs? Physical? Emotional?

21. Describe how, if at all, the housing facility helped you grow stronger?
Probe: Counseling, group sessions, health services, job training. Did you share your story
with other victims? If so, how did sharing impact you?

22. Were you open to housing facility programs when you arrived, why or why not?
Probes: First time/last time? Who/what influenced you? What programs?

23. What other cultural influences impacted your decision to stay in county housing?
Probes: Rules of the game? Fear of your pimp? Conflict with other CSEC in the facility?
What positive cultural influences did you experience? Welcoming/homelike environment or
an institutional feel?

24. How did having other victims with similar experiences (CSEC) in the facility influence your
decision to stay? (if applicable)
Probe: Support and understanding? Mentors/models? Pressure for recruitment?

25. Based on your experience, is there anything you would like to add that you believe would
help stakeholders (police/advocates/shelters) increase housing retention rates and/or improve
the quality of service being provided to victims?

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 157
APPENDIX C
Facility Observation Checklist
Observer: ________________________________
Date: __________ Time: __________ Location: __________________________________
Knowledge
Influence Observation Observed? Comments
CSEC victims
need to know the
expectations for
victims living in
emergency
housing.
Manuals;
posters, rules,
job aids,
❑ Yes
❑ No

CSEC victims
need to understand
the relationship
between long-term
housing and
survivorship.
Conceptual
observations
not
conducted/
looked for
❑ Yes
❑ No

Victims need to
know how to
participate in their
recovery process.
Activity
board, steps
posted to
complete/
achieve
❑ Yes
❑ No

Stakeholders need
to think about
what it means to
be a survivor.
Personal
expression,
cards, notes,
poems,
reflections
❑ Yes
❑ No

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 158
Organization
Influences Observations Observed? Observations
CSEC victims
need advocates
who understand
the value of a
trauma-informed
approach to
providing
services.
Presence of
advocates, list
of services
available

Food/clothing
/shelter
❑ Yes
❑ No

CSEC victims
need shelter
policies adapted
to their unique
form of
victimization.
Posted
policies/
procedures
❑ Yes
❑ No

CSEC victims
need to be
connected to a
culture focused
on victim
empowerment.
Observe
facility,
intake area,
living area,
interview
room

Presence of
advocates /
mentors
❑ Yes
❑ No

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 159
APPENDIX D
Immediate Evaluation
Please circle the rating that best indicates the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. The training held my interest.

2. What I learned in the course will
help me on the job.

3. The course provided
opportunities to practice
applying what I learned.

4. Feedback from the scenarios
gave me the confidence to apply
what I learned in the workplace.

5. I am confident I can break down
complex skills for CSEC to help
build confidence.

6. I believe it is worthwhile for me
to promote autonomy and choice
for CSEC in the shelter.

7. I am committed to modeling the
skills I learned when I return to
work.

8. I will recommend the course to
fellow staff members.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Please provide feedback for the following questions:

1. What were the major concepts you learned today?
2. What aspects of the course did you find most relevant to your job?
How could this course be improved?

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 160
APPENDIX E
OBSERVER EVALUATION
This evaluation is for supervisors or peers auditing the course. The feedback provided
will help to continually improve the learning environment and quality of instruction. The
checklist below should be used to rate an instructor’s organization, command of the material,
presentation skills, ability to connect with students, and overall effectiveness. Comments should
be constructive in nature and include specific observations whenever possible. An individual
evaluation checklist should be completed for each instructor.

Rating Scale

1= Effective use of targeted behavior
2=Moderately effective use of targeted behavior
3=Ineffective use of targeted behavior

Targeted Behavior Rating Comments
The instructor demonstrated a
good understanding of the
course content.

The course materials were
well organized and clearly
explained.

The instructor connected with
students via active listening
and clarifying questions.

The instructor asked open-
ended questions to promote
engagement.

The course activities and
exercises were well
developed.

The instructor provided
timely and constructive
feedback for activities.

The instructor was able to
clearly and effectively
respond to student questions.

The instructor recommended
appropriate resources to help
address student challenges.

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 161
APPENDIX F
Delayed Evaluation: 90-Day Survey

Please take a moment to complete this survey regarding the CSEC & Housing workshop you
recently attended. Circle the rating that best indicates the degree to which you agree or disagree
with each of the following statements.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. The information provided in the workshop
was applicable to my job.

2. I use the job aids provided in class to help
CSEC understand housing expectations.

3. This program has positively affected
communication between staff and CSEC.

4. I am able to provide feedback that is more
constructive to CSEC after attending the
workshop.

5. I am already seeing increased engagement
from CSEC after applying what I learned.

6. I have received support from my
supervisors to apply what I have learned.

7. I believe I will see a positive impact on
shelter retention rates if I consistently
apply what I learned.

8. Looking back, attending this workshop
was a good use of my time.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please provide feedback to the following questions:

1. How has your participation in the workshop benefited your organization?

2. What other tools, training, or resources should be added to the workshop to make it more
relevant to your work?

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 162
APPENDIX G
Dashboards for Riverview County Shelter Website

Critical Goals
Dashboard
Yearly
Goal
1
st

Quarter
2
nd

Quarter
3
rd

Quarter
4
th

Quarter
2021
Results
CSEC who refrain from
leaving the shelter without
authorization

CSEC successfully placed in
long-term housing

CSEC participating in
counseling programs

Increase in survivor-
advocates for CSEC

Reduction in run-away youth
reports filed by the shelter

Program Feedback
Dashboard
Annual Goal for
Shelter Staff
6 Months Post-
training
12 Months
Post-training
Annual results
Staff Attitude
Staff Confidence
Staff Engagement
Staff Satisfaction
Staff Commitment

HOUSING CHALLENGES FOR CSEC 163
APPENDIX H
SITE PERMISSION LETTER

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied the gap analysis framework to understand the housing challenges associated with the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) as they relate to shelter retention rates in the Riverview County Social Services Agency. The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs assessment of CSEC victims, through the lens of survivors, in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources that require improvements by the agency to increase retention rates. The study applied a mixed-methods approach that included semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and site observations. The collected data, which was coded and analyzed, identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of CSEC victims in the shelter. The findings allow the organization to make informed decisions, based on victims’ needs, which support their goal of maximizing shelter retention rates. Further, the study proposed solutions for each of the established needs and provided evidence-based recommendations supported by academic literature. This study contributes to the nation-wide effort to end the cycle of sexual exploitation by offering recommendations that may enhance the level of service to CSEC victims in similar settings.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

Commercial sexual exploitation of children: the impact of awareness education in the Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective

PDF

Increasing student persistence at a community college from an administration perspective

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

PDF

A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

Promoting equity in discipline practices for Latino students: a gap analysis

PDF

Evaluating collective impact in a local government: A gap analysis

PDF

Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach

PDF

The attrition and lack of medical follow-up of patients in research in a primary care setting: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining the achievement gap of seventh grade English language learners: A gap analysis

PDF

A-G course completion percentage upon high school graduation. A gap analysis

PDF

Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Under reporting of male sexual assault in the United States Marine Corps: a gap analysis

PDF

Promoting a positive school culture from three perspectives: a promising practices study from the administrator perspective

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support in Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of site administrator needs

PDF

Educational resiliency factors contributing to college success for adolescent mothers

Asset Metadata

Creator Duckwitz, Rodney Ray (author)

Core Title Housing challenges for commercial sexual exploitation of children: a gap analysis of shelter retention rates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/15/2020

Defense Date 03/27/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag commercial sexual exploitation of children,CSEC,housing challenges,OAI-PMH Harvest,shelter retention rates

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Sundt, Melora (committee member)

Creator Email duckwitz@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-310299

Unique identifier UC11663581

Identifier etd-DuckwitzRo-8532.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-310299 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DuckwitzRo-8532.pdf

Dmrecord 310299

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Duckwitz, Rodney Ray

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA