90CA1828!01!00 DCF HART Final Report January 2020

Connecticut Department of Children and Families
Human Anti-trafficking Response

Team (HART) in Connecticut
December 2019
State of Connecticut ICF Incorporated, LLC

Department of Children and Families 9300 Lee Highway
505 Hudson Street Fairfax, VA 22031
Hartford, CT 06106-6471
This project is support by Award No. 90CA1828-01-00, awarded by the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health and Human Services or the State
of Connecticut.
Connecticut’s Human Anti-trafficking Response Team (HART)
Department of Children and Families
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................i
Introduction……… ....................................................................................................................1
Human Trafficking in Connecticut................................................................................1

Response to Trafficking and CTDCF’s Role ................................................................3
Overall Goals of HART ..................................................................................................6
Target Population ..........................................................................................................7
Overview of HART Structure and Cross-system Partnerships ..................................7
State Multi-Disciplinary Teams and Children’s Advocacy Centers........................7
Law Enforcement and Judicial Officers ................................................................7
Service Providers .................................................................................................7
Federal Partners ..................................................................................................8
State Partners ......................................................................................................8
Faith Based Organizations ...................................................................................8
Medical Agencies .................................................................................................8
Formalizing Partnerships .....................................................................................8
Overview of HART Model..........................................................................................................9
HART Goals and Objectives .........................................................................................9

HART Activities ...........................................................................................................11
Evaluate Existing Services and Response Structure .......................................... 11
Train Community Stakeholders ..........................................................................13
Develop and Implement Child Advocacy Center (CAC) and Multi-Disciplinary
Team (MDT) Enhancements ..................................................................16
Develop Child Trafficking Criteria for Providing Credentialing ............................ 17
Increase Judicial System Response to Child Trafficking Victims ........................ 17
Advocate in the Connecticut State Legislature ...................................................18
Collaborate with Faith Based Networks..............................................................19
Develop a Computer Data Collection Reporting System .................................... 21
Build Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Infrastructure ............................... 21
Create New Forms for Intra-Agency Data Sharing, Research Design and
Information Dissemination ......................................................................27
Program Evaluation ................................................................................................................29
Overview of Evaluation Design ..................................................................................29

Key Research Questions ...................................................................................29
Study Methodology and Data Collection ............................................................30
Stakeholder Perspective and Statewide Results.......................................................31
i
Methodology ......................................................................................................31
Respondent Background....................................................................................32
Findings .............................................................................................................35
Administrative Data .....................................................................................................53
Training Evaluation and Trafficking Awareness Surveys ......................................... 55
Methodology ......................................................................................................55
Trainee Background and Demographics ............................................................55
Findings .............................................................................................................57
Youth Perspective .......................................................................................................59
Methodology ......................................................................................................59
Respondent Demographics ................................................................................59
Youth Findings ............................................................................................................60
How did youth survivors obtain knowledge about Human Trafficking? When were
they first identified as victims? ................................................................60
What types of services did youth survivors receive? .......................................... 61
How were youth survivors first connected to services? ...................................... 61
How did youth survivors describe the services provided by the Department of
Children and Families (DCF)? ................................................................62
Survivor Recommendations ...............................................................................63
Conclusions .......................................................................................................65
Summary and Next Steps .......................................................................................................67
Conclusions .................................................................................................................67
Lessons Learned .........................................................................................................69
Implications .................................................................................................................69
Recommendations ......................................................................................................70
Sustainability ...............................................................................................................72
Dissemination ..............................................................................................................77
Appendix A. Cluster Outputs .................................................................................................. A
Appendix B. Detailed Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory Results ............................... H
Appendix C. Trafficking Awareness Surveys..........................................................................J
ii
Acknowledgements
Over the course of the five-year award, there have been hundreds of individuals that contributed
to the successes across the state and helped tackle such a heinous crime. This project and the sheer
success would not have been possible without Tammy Sneed, HART Project Lead, and Yvette
Young, HART Coordinator, and their dedication, leadership, and drive to protect our children. We
thank you for your hard work and expertise that not only helped this project but influenced the
response to trafficking nationwide. We would also like to extend a special thanks to each HART
member, HART Liaisons, members of the MDTs, and the HART Leadership Team. Each and
every one of you made a difference, whether it was through learning and participating in trainings,
becoming a trainer, identification of a single child victim or managing cases in your region,
development of policies and procedures, investigating cases, representing victims in court,
prosecuting traffickers, or offering resources or support to our youth. And thank you to the ICF
Team for providing their evaluation expertise and documenting the successes and challenges along
the way. A special thank you to Samantha Lowry, ICF Senior Director of Research and Evaluation,
an invaluable partner ensuring HART was working to strengthen its response to address child
trafficking in our state. We also want to thank the victims that supported the evaluation for their
bravery and willingness to speak about their experiences and help influence the care provided to
victims and how stakeholders can better response to those in need.
The authors would like to thank the Children’s Bureau and the State of Connecticut’s Department
of Children & Families for their continued support, guidance, and commitment to this project. This
research is sponsored by the Children’s Bureau, an Office of the Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Award No. 90CA1828-01-00. It
is also made possible because of the partnerships, collaboration, and participation of national, state,
local partners and providers that contributed to the enhancement of the Human Anti-trafficking
Response Team in Connecticut.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this research brief are
those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the
Department of Children & Families or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
CONNECTICUT’S HUMAN ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSE TEAM (HART) | Final Report

Executive Summary
It has been nearly 15 years since Connecticut took their first steps in addressing human trafficking
within their borders. Over the years, champions have made certain the light would continue to
shine on this very important issue that for many years was drastically misunderstood. The numbers
of children referred to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (CTDCF) now
exceeds 1,000 individuals all with high risk indicators that demand a collaborative response.
CTDCF took the lead in responding to the children referred with a coordination of an internal
human trafficking response team, which evolved over the years into a multi-department, multi-
agency partnership and advanced service system response.
The Human Anti-trafficking Response Team (HART) was created in order to focus on and
reduce child trafficking, with more than 200 members at various levels in law enforcement, the
provider community, faith-based network, state agencies, medical services, and attorneys. In
October of 2014, CTDCF, in partnership with ICF Incorporated, LLC, received a $1 million
federal grant to improve and evaluate Connecticut's response to child victims of domestic sex
trafficking. This five-year grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau supported CTDCF's efforts to
coordinate the response by local and state agencies, including law enforcement and the medical
community, so that child victims of human trafficking received effective and comprehensive
treatment and legal services.
Over this period, the State of Connecticut Legislature have created legislation to promote public
awareness and prevention of child sex trafficking, to provide for ongoing monitoring of efforts to
combat trafficking, to clarify mandatory reporting, and to provide a statewide oversight and
monitoring body. CTDCF has increasingly sharpened its focus on the growing issue of trafficking
afflicting children across the State. Since 2008, over 1,000 children have been referred to DCF as
possible victims of child trafficking. CTDCF has put forth tremendous efforts to end the sale of
Connecticut’s children. These efforts fall within three categories: Identification and Response,
Awareness and Education, and Restoration and Recovery.
There are six Human Anti-trafficking Response Teams in Connecticut. These are inter-disciplinary
teams led by experienced HART Liaisons, including; the child’s treatment team, specialized
providers, and legal representation, if indicated. The HART Liaison works with the local Multi-
Disciplinary Team (MDT) ensuring the cases are afforded all resources to maximize prosecutions
while ensuring the child and families are provided the appropriate medical and mental health
services they are entitled to as victims.
Over the years, [the State] has learned that our children
in Connecticut are being victimized by one of the most
horrific crimes in the world.
—Tammy Sneed, Director, Office of Human Trafficking Services, Department of Children and Families

CTDCF has focused its efforts to accomplish the following 4 goals over the period of this grant:
1) conduct a needs assessment with current stakeholders to determine gaps in service and services
in need of replication and/or enhancement within the current Connecticut System of Care for
Trafficking Victims; 2) develop inter- and intra-agency collaborations and infrastructures needed
to enhance, expand and sustain delivery of service to victims in DCF care, victims who have aged
or opted out of care, or victims living with a parent or guardian at the time of referral; 3) develop
a data collection and reporting system which can be incorporated into the CTDCF Results Based
Accountability (RBA) framework for evaluating the efficacy of services and systems, and
identifying data trends to support improved identification and understanding of risk factors and
early indicators to inform treatment and support services; and 4) create new forums for intra-
agency data sharing, research design and information dissemination.
At the inception of the grant, the annual number of child trafficking victims reported to CTDCF
were well under 100 each year, ranging from 2 to 79 victims. Over time, the number of referrals
drastically rose to more than 200 youth annually and continued at that level for three consecutive
years. In 2018, the number of boys referred reached an all-time high at 27 youth. At the beginning
of the grant, one third of the referrals African American/Black (35%) and one quarter were
Caucasian (26%) and Hispanic (24%). In 2018, the racial makeup of referrals shifted to nearly half
being Hispanic (46%)—double the number five years prior.
This influx of identification may be in large part due to the training efforts across the state. CTDCF
has conducted more than 700 trainings for over 15,000 individuals, with a continual increase in
the volume of requested trainings from year to year. In the last six months of the grant alone, 117
trainings were conducted reaching more than 2,791 participants. Additionally, more than 13,000
surveys were conducted across these trainings and showed significant improvements in ii
knowledge, beliefs, and comfort with child trafficking across all professions and fields.
Across all project goals, there was significant improvement. Connecticut is a leading state in the
combat against trafficking and to see such significant improvement speaks volumes about the
dedication and infusion of knowledge that occurred across the community. Many of the goals
initially established as part of this grant were met and exceeded midstream and as a result, HART
established new focal areas and committees to continue to make significant strides in the final two
years and filling important gaps in their response.
One of the major lessons learned is the need for additional web-based training to meet the training
demands across the state. Current legislation requires identified professionals to be trained
annually. CTDCF hopes to change this requirement to every 3 years for refresher trainings; the
legislation did not pass during the 2019 legislative session. As shown in the volume of trainings
conducted through this grant (700+) and the number of individuals trained being well beyond
15,000 individuals, with only 249 trainers in the state, there is a dire need for support.
Another lesson that continues today is, although additional foster parents continue to be trained to
become placement providers for trafficked children, CTDCF has learned an increase in volume
does not equate to an increase in open beds. There continues to be a barrier of homes being filled
when a request is made for a specialized home.
Overall, the results of the evaluation indicate that the HART project addressed most of the
proposed outcomes and greatly exceeded what was planned for this grant, with only a couple areas
that continue to be a focus of HART or rely on external forces for full achievement that are frankly
out of the control of the team. For example, the legislation remains misaligned with the TVPA, but
Final Report | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

improvements have been made and HART has very actively educated legislators and continued to
find ways to reduce child trafficking without full legislative support. Also, the tracking of youth
outcomes has improved but has not been fully implemented. The increase in the number of
organizations with record keeping and increased collaboration across organizations indicate
improved infrastructure is needed to provide a fully coordinated response to trafficking that relies
on collection, sharing, and use of common data.
The decreases in need for trainings on knowledge and identification for HART members indicates
a better ability to identify trafficked victims and movement toward more advanced understanding
among those providers closest to child victims. Improved identification and training is also
evidenced in the decrease of training as a barrier to identification. However, recommendations for
even more collaboration with law enforcement and education indicate there is still room for
improvement of a cross-system response to trafficking. The increases in barriers to access indicate
that, once victims are identified, victims’ access to needed resources remains challenging given
limited resources, staff turnover, and factors related to low rates of self-identification and
continued care.
This grant has had a tremendous impact in Connecticut and set the stage for continued growth in
combating trafficking. As presented in the sustainability plan and throughout this report, the
Children’s Bureau funding was instrumental in enhancing the State HART and making
improvements over the last five years that have built capacity and enabled the response
framework to fully mature and establish roots for years to come.
iii
“Let victims know THERE IS A LIFE WHERE TRAFFICKING WON’T HAPPEN.”

-Child Trafficking Survivor Interview
Final Report | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chapter 1
Introduction
In the United States, human trafficking is a growing and profitable industry generating an
estimated 32 billion dollars a year and involves exploitation of our most vulnerable youth (Belser
& Patrick, 2005). According to the Office on Trafficking in Persons, child trafficking occurs when
“minors are compelled to perform a commercial sex act regardless of the presence of force, fraud
or coercion” or when “individuals are compelled to work or provide services by force, fraud or
coercion” (ACF, 2019). The majority of reported human trafficking cases are sex trafficking
and an estimated 40 percent involve the trafficking of a child (Banks & Tracey Kyckelhahn,
2011). Communities around the country are working to combat child trafficking in settings that
regularly serve youth such as schools, hospitals, and law enforcement agencies. Though the
strategies, settings, and resources differ from community to community, best practices recommend
using a collaborative multiagency approach to providing services (Hemmings et al., 2016).
Coordination, however, can be challenging due to the restrictions and practices of individual
agencies. In Connecticut, the Department of Children and Families (CTDCF) has taken the lead in
implementing a multi-disciplinary approach to child trafficking and growing the state’s ability to
prevent trafficking and respond to victims and survivors.
Human Trafficking in Connecticut

Connecticut is a small east coast state with a population of only around 3,500,000 (Census Bureau,
2018). Despite its small size, it is an attractive location for trafficking activities given its high-
density interstate highways connecting New York and Massachusetts and two large casinos. Since
2008, more than 1,000 children between the ages of 2 and 18 have been referred to CTDCF as
possible victims of child trafficking (HART, 2018). Most of these victims were living with a
parent or guardian when the suspected trafficking occurred, and the majority had previously

Defining Domestic
experienced sexual abuse and/or neglect
(HART, 2018). However, the actual number of
Minor Sex Trafficking child trafficking victims is unknown and likely to
be significantly higher than the reported rate given
that it continues to be difficult to identify victims
Under the federal Trafficking Victim Protection Act, due to lack of self-identification and recognition as
domestic minor sex trafficking is the recruitment, victims, the hidden nature of human trafficking,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of and the use of the internet in its facilitation
a U.S. citizen(s) or legal permanent resident(s) (Clawson & Grace, 2007).
under the age of 18 for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography or erotic dancing/stripping. However, The State understands the challenges and
children who are not legal residents may also be complexities of identifying at-risk youth and/ or
trafficked for the purposes of labor or sex. victims. Conclusive, reliable statistics and data
evidencing the extent of the problem are elusive,
Under federal and Connecticut law, children under and while numerous national projections have
the age of 18 are considered victims of human been completed, no reliable national estimate
trafficking, not criminals. There is no need to prove exists on the incidence or prevalence of child
fraud, force or coercion. trafficking. One of the main obstacles to
identifying youth who are or have been involved
Throughout this report and efforts across the State, with child trafficking and providing them with
Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking (DMST) and services is the misunderstanding by young people
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children of their situation and the lack of desire and ability
(CSEC) are collectively referred to as Child to seek help. Many child victims do not realize the
Trafficking. dangerousness and exploitative nature of their 2
situation and may confuse a trafficker’s caretaking
activities with true caring (Institute of Medicine,
2014). Recognizing these challenges and the
complexities of identifying and responding to at-
risk youth and/or victims, CTDCF has been
collecting basic data since 2008 to ensure high risk
and confirmed victims, whether male, female or
LGBTQI youth, are properly identified, and
offered coordinated, appropriate ongoing support
and access to services resulting in positive
outcomes that include a successful transition from
child welfare to the community. One of the key
Sources for Legal Definitions objectives over the last decade has been to increase
The Federal Trafficking Victim Protection Act of prosecutions in these cases without further
2000 (reauthorized in 2008) traumatization of the victims.
Gen. Stat. §53a-82: A person must be 16 or older While there have been several legislative efforts to
to be guilty of prostitution. If the person is between combat the sexual exploitation of children, there is
16 and 18, there is a presumption that the actor some incongruence that remains between the
was coerced into committing such offense by Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and
another person.
the State of Connecticut’s legislative definition of
child trafficking. To highlight two differences,
Connecticut’s law requires an exchange of sex for
a “fee” and a third-party trafficker, which differs
Chapter 1 | INTRODUCTION
from the standard established in the federal statute (Shared Hope International, 2015). The TVPA’s
definition broadens the criteria by eliminating the requirement for a third-party trafficker and
establishing the criminality of the exchange of “something of value” with a child for sex. As result,
Connecticut laws often lead to confusion among law enforcement agencies and misidentification
of child trafficking victims as prostitutes, which yield criminal charges rather than referrals to
services and/or limit the legal action judicial officers can take.
Two other critical elements in combatting child trafficking in the state are collaboration and
information sharing among agencies who specifically serve child trafficking victims, such as
mental health agencies and shelters, and the organizations who serve child trafficking victims as
part of their general populations, such as schools and hospitals (Bounds, Julion & Delaney, 2015).
As Connecticut improved collaboration and coordination to address this domestic crisis, the
systems and services have also continued to evolve. This increased awareness has resulted in the
need to further develop and refine the coordinated response to the issue, including increased
intergovernmental collaboration and coordination, continued legislative reforms, and enhancing
the multidisciplinary trainings that CTDCF spearheads for many partners throughout the state.
Specialized training is now required for workers in a variety of settings to ensure child trafficking
victims are correctly identified and provided with appropriate services.
Recognizing these challenges and the expanded work in the state, the Connecticut Department of
Children and Families entered into this grant seeking to identify existing gaps in services, increase
inter- and intra- agency knowledge of and response to child trafficking, improve existing processes
and infrastructures to better serve child trafficking victims, and disseminate information and best
practices.
3
Response to Trafficking and CTDCF’s Role
The main recipient of this grant is the State of Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families
(CTDCF). As the provider of child welfare services for the state of Connecticut, CTDCF is
uniquely placed to identify cases of child trafficking and unite multi-disciplinary agencies in
providing services. In 2008 they developed and implemented Human Trafficking Response
System (HTRS) to benefit children identified as victims of or at high risk for trafficking or
commercial exploitation. In 2014, their role in the care of child trafficking cases was expanded
through Public Act 14-186 (S.B. 5040) which allowed CTDCF to provide child welfare services
to any minor child identified as or believed to be a victim of human trafficking by CTDCF. All
suspected cases of child trafficking are referred to CTDCF through their 24/7 Careline where
specialized staff determine whether the case meets the appropriate criteria. If it does, Careline
workers immediate refer it to a Human Anti-Trafficking Response Team (HART) Liaison. This
act also established CTDCF as the provider of child trafficking training for law enforcement and
DCF Careline
Connecticut law (Public Act 17-32) requires that DCF is notified every time a child is arrested for
prostitution. In CT, children under the age of 18 cannot be prosecuted for prostitution. If there is
any reason to suspect that a child has been trafficked for the purposes of sex work, notification
is conducted through the DCF Careline at 800-842-2288.
allowed Multi-disciplinary Teams (MDTs) to review child trafficking cases in order to provide
better coordinated services across agencies.
4
This shift positioned CTDCF as the leader for systemic and interorganizational change and allowed
for better identification of child trafficking victims and coordination of services. The expansion of
CTDCF’s provision of services and coordination for all child trafficking confirmed or suspected
cases, regardless of whether a parent or guardian is involved in the trafficking, is unique in that it
goes beyond the traditional child welfare scope of services. Instead of focusing on maltreatment
and current involvement in the child welfare system as the only risk factors for child trafficking,
this approach allowed CTDCF to broaden their scope and identify and serve a larger swath of
victims. Additionally, the decision to refer all child trafficking victims or suspected child
trafficking victims to CTDCF meant that mandated reporters were required to report any cases of
youth engaging in commercial sex acts directly to CTDCF. Previously, many of these cases were
viewed as criminal cases. The change removed the individual bias of judicial officers, hospital
workers or others in determining whether the minor was a victim of child trafficking and placed it
in the hands of the trained CTDCF workers, which leads to better identification of cases
(Werkmeister, Ostander & Feely, 2018). It also led to a shift in public opinion and larger public
concern about the identification and needs of this population. The change in the law created an
opportunity for CTDCF to establish a coordinated systemic response to case referrals from the
Careline.
In the early months of the grant, the team structure for HART was revised. A decision was made
to restructure to ensure greater collaboration within the system and to ensure those individuals who
are working directly with referred clients are represented on these teams and are assisting with
making decisions related to needs of trafficked youth. The 3 HART related teams now include
HART, HART Leadership and the Regional HARTs. Across Connecticut there are now over 200
Chapter 3 | PROGRAM EVALUATION

HART members addressing child trafficking from a statewide perspective in their unique positions
including law enforcement (local, state and federal), hospitals, emergency medical services,
schools, lodging industry, service providers, faith-based communities and local community
groups. HART has several specialized committees (see HART Organization Chart above) focused
on areas identified during the annual HART retreats. At the core of this response was now the
HART Leadership. The HART Leadership consists of HART Liaisons from all six regions in the
state, 3 MDT Coordinators, the Connecticut Children’s Alliance (CCA) Chapter Director, and two
specialty members, which changed over time. HART Leadership focus on case response including
policies, CTDCF and MDT collaboration, specialized service providers and training needs for
teams responsible for child trafficking cases. HART Leadership is divided into six “Regional
HART” teams lead by the CTDCF area offices, each representing a different CTDCF region. The
Regional HARTs are interdisciplinary teams of child welfare personnel, multidisciplinary team
(MDT) coordinators, state and federal law enforcement agencies, foster care providers and clinical
providers among others. This regional structure facilitates a local response to human trafficking
cases and fosters collaboration among stakeholders to better serve child trafficking victims and
strengthen local communities understanding and commitment of child trafficking.
Besides providing a coordinated response to child trafficking cases, these Regional HARTs also
recommend policies, procedures, and guidelines and design and conduct trainings. For example,
Regional HARTs created a policy for CTDCF’s child trafficking case management, including
intake procedures, assessments and screenings, a human trafficking screening tool, a flow chart of
services, decision mapping, and descriptions of the role and responsibilities of the HART Liaison
managing the case. The Regional HARTs have also used their expertise as service providers to
meet the high demand for specialized training that rose across the state as awareness of the issue
grew. Their trainings have also been delivered across the country and the team members have been
invited to share their cross-system approach to combat child trafficking to a diverse range of
audiences.
Overall Goals of HART

CTDCF aimed to enhance the cross-system coordination in order to improve identification and
provide effective, appropriate services for child trafficking victims across the state. Specifically,
this grant focused on four main goals:
 Conduct a needs assessment with current stakeholders to determine gaps in service and
services in need of replication and/or enhancement within the current Connecticut System
of Care for Trafficking Victims;
 Develop inter- and intra-agency collaborations and infrastructures needed to enhance,
expand and sustain delivery of services to victims in DCF care, victims who have aged or
opted out of care, or victims living with a parent or guardian at the time of referral;
 Develop a data collection and reporting system which can be incorporated into the CTDCF
Results Based Accountability (RBA) framework for evaluating the efficacy of services and
systems, and identifying data trends to support improved identification and understanding
of risk factors and early indicators to inform treatment and support services; and
 Create new forums for intra agency data sharing, research design and information
dissemination.

Look for Stakeholder
Perspectives/Ideas
Target Population
The main focus of HART was on identification of youth who are at risk or who have experienced
child trafficking, focusing primarily on those who have current or past involvement with the child
welfare system, and regardless of other demographics. More specifically, HART was targeting
victims in DCF care, those who have aged or opted out of care, and/or victim living with a parent
or guardian at the time of referral. Given that there are several risk factors that contribute to child
trafficking victimization, including age, poverty, sexual abuse, family status, substance/physical
abuse, learning disabilities, loss of parent/caregiver, runaway/throwaway, sexual identity, and lack
of support systems, HART strategically focused on classes of youth that were the most vulnerable
and least likely to be identified to help ensure the response was fully inclusive (Clawson, Dutch,
Soleman & Grace, 2009). In addition, some training and resources specifically targeted youth
aging out of the child welfare system, homeless youth and unaccompanied youth, as each
population has been identified at high risk for child trafficking and would help to facilitate
prevention and self-identification.
While youth were the main victim population of interest, stakeholders from various professions
were the focus for training and enhancing the system-level coordination in order to effectively
respond to victimization. This included: child welfare staff, probation staff, court personnel, law
enforcement at all levels, legal representation at all levels, service providers, schools, medical
providers including school nurses, universities including schools of social work and medical
students, and multiple community organizations including the faith based community.
Overview of HART Structure and Cross-system Partnerships

7
Strong community partnerships are pivotal to the success of the HART model. CTDCF has
engaged a wide number and variety of stakeholders to provide wraparound services for child
trafficking victims.
State Multi-Disciplinary Teams and Children’s Advocacy Centers
State Multi-Disciplinary Teams (MDTs) and Children Advocacy Centers (CACs) play an
important role in the case plan and care of child trafficking victims. They also provide a place
where different services providers can come together to respond to the case. Representatives
from the 17 MDTs sit on the Regional HARTs and HART liaisons sit on the MDTs to ensure
information sharing and collaboration of care. When a case comes through the Careline, the
HART Liaison consults the Decision Map and engages the MDT and CAC. CACs are available
to provide trauma-informed services such as forensic interviewing, mental health care, and
medical exams to assist in the gathering of evidence and the provision of care to child
trafficking victims. These teams are provided training and technical assistance to ensure they
have the knowledge and tools necessary to provide the best care possible.
Law Enforcement and Judicial Officers
Law enforcement officers are key members and partners of HART. They conduct the criminal
investigation of the case and often play a role in securing the safety of victims. Lawyers and
state’s attorney’s offices are also essential partners. Legal services provide defense and civil
legal services to the victims and the state’s attorney’s offices decide whether to prosecute cases.
What other agencies or organizations should be involved in the State HART or

Regional HARTs?
 There has been limited success recruiting schools and other educational organizations.
 Survivors currently participate, some self-identify and others do not publicly identify as
survivors. However, survivor participation is low.
 More medical professionals, such as staff from medical clinics like Planned Parenthood.
 Law enforcement and prosecutors have participated, but it has been inconsistent over the
last few years.
Service Providers
CTDCF recognized that it is limited in the work that it can do on its own and has engaged
several different stakeholders to provide services ranging from mental health care to shelter
beds. Several of these organizations are part of HART or contract with CTDCF to provide
services to child trafficking victims.
Federal Partners
CTDCF works with several federal partners and federal law enforcement agencies to share
information and assist in the pursuit of federal human trafficking criminal cases.
State Partners
In addition to working with individual agencies, CTDCF also works with several different 8
committees and organizations that work at the state level to address child trafficking. These
organizations include the Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants (formally the
International Institute of Connecticut), the Connecticut Coalition Against Trafficking, and the
Trafficking in Persons Council, with the HART Project Lead as an appointed member.
Faith Based Organizations
Early on, CTDCF identified several faith-based organizations who had the capacity to serve
child trafficking victims and provide other financial and educational supports. One of the goals
set in this grant was to engage these organizations which CTDCF has done successfully
resulting in additional services, expanded outreach, and increased funding.
Medical Agencies
Medical services providers are also members of HART and the MDTs. HART has been active
in training these agencies to better provide services to child trafficking victims and increase
their knowledge and comfort identifying victims.
Formalizing Partnerships
Because CTDCF engages many different partners for many different purposes, they utilize several
different partnership agreements including Memorandums of Understanding, contracts and
information sharing agreements. These various agreements have allowed the agency to meet the
various policy and procedural constraints of other agencies while allowing for standardized
practices and agreed upon expectations across participating programs.
Chapter 2
Overview of HART Model

HART Goals and Objectives
While Connecticut has been able to develop a nascent system of response to the human trafficking
of children in its state, through this project CTDCF sought to enhance its ability to provide a
complete system of care that would effectively address the needs of these very complex children
in a uniform and sustainable manner across the state. Using the existing HART statewide structure
and regional teams, existing partnerships and curriculums and the funds provided by this grant it
set forth to:
Goal 1: Evaluate CTDCF’s current and enhanced Human Trafficking

Response Systems (HTRS) and services.
Objective 1: Develop and implement a statewide needs assessment.
Objective 2: Identify current resources and services available to trafficking victims in CT and
gaps in services.
Objective 3: Assess victim experience of, and level of satisfaction with existing services and
programs for trafficking victims in CT.

Goal 2: Develop inter- and intra-agency collaborations and infrastructures to

enhance and sustain comprehensive, coordinated clinical support and legal
services for all child victims of human trafficking in CT.
Objective 1: Train all Regional HART service providers including models developed in select
CTDCF Regions.
Objective 2: Develop and implement CAC/ MDT enhancements to meet needs of all child
trafficking victims across the state of Connecticut.
Objective 3: Planned rollout of specialized training related to boys and LGBTQI youth at high
risk or confirmed victims of child trafficking.
Objective 4: Planned rollout of new Foster Care Model, Training and Resource Guide.
Objective 5: Develop CSEC/ DMST criteria for provider credentialing.
Objective 6: Develop and enhance legal resources for child trafficking victims.
Objective 7: Identify and implement strategies to enhance and develop new legislation to
protect high risk and confirmed victims of child trafficking.
Objective 8: Develop collaborations with Faith Based Networks.
Goal 3: Develop and enhance data collection and reporting systems to inform
CT of the prevalence of child trafficking, promote collaboration, and secure
additional funding for support services and programs.
10
Objective 1: Ensure computer data collection and reporting systems collect key data
elements necessary to produce automated performance indicator and outcome
reports;
Objective 2: Use automated outcome reports to inform continuous quality improvement
strategies for identifying and supporting victims of human trafficking.
Goal 4: Create new forums for intra-agency data sharing, research design,
and information dissemination.
Objective 1: Participate in periodic teleconferences, webinars and professional conferences.
Objective 2: Develop public service announcements and informational materials to
disseminate throughout CT and other jurisdictions.
Objective 3: Coordinate educational forums, conferences and shared learning opportunities
on CSEC/DMST.
In the short term, the accomplishment of these goals would generate strategies to enhance services
and fill gaps identified by the needs assessment, improve CTDCF’s knowledge of effective
practices and service delivery, allow for the implementation of continuous quality improvement
strategies, draft and present bills promoting better systemic care for child trafficking to the
Connecticut state legislature, increase CTDCF’s treatment efficacy, disseminate information in
Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Department of Children and Families Look for Evaluation
Cluster Measures
professional journals and venues, and increase CTDCF’s capacity to assess child trafficking
demographic services, service utilization and satisfaction. In the long term, the accomplishment of
these goals would lead to sustainable systemic changes that would allow for prevention and greater
identification of and services for child trafficking victims.
HART Activities
CTDCF, in collaboration with its’ partners, sought to achieve these goals over the course of the
five-year grant through several activities.
Evaluate Existing Services and Response Structure
To facilitate an effective and robust evaluation of the HART Project, ICF Incorporated, LLC (ICF),
in partnership with the CTDCF, conducted data collection in three phases that occurred over the
five-year period. Phase I of the evaluation occurred in the first year of the project. During this
phase ICF conducted a baseline needs assessment that provided a snapshot of needs of the field as
they existed at the beginning of the study. Specifically, they sought to identify and measure levels
of knowledge and awareness around child trafficking, level of preparedness to identify and respond
to child trafficking victims, level of collaboration between agencies to respond to child trafficking
victims, factors that influence the identification of victims, and the challenges around identifying
and providing the types of services child trafficking victims require. Phase II of the evaluation
occurred in the third year of the project. During that phase ICF conducted a progress assessment
to begin to uncover how the needs changed and improved with this federal funding and provide
information to CTDCF to help improve the processes and inform a strategic plan moving forward.
11
This evaluation included surveys and interviews with key stakeholders and victim interviews. The
electronic survey was administered to key stakeholders who make up the main state-wide HART,
the Regional HARTs and each of the 17 state MDTs. ICF also conducted in depth in person and
telephone interviews with representatives from each of the teams including individuals from law
enforcement, state’s attorney’s offices, victim service providers, foster care providers and CTDCF
workers. In the first year, to establish a more comprehensive baseline, key leadership was
interviewed individually to gather more nuances to the partnerships and existing response
structures in place at the outset of the grant. Focus groups were then used to gather groups of
professionals, such as services providers. Interviews were conducted with leadership in the third
year of the grant as a mid-point check-in on progress and to help inform the strategic planning
session for the last two years of the grant. In year five, ICF followed up with second round of
surveys and final interviews to determine how the state had progressed over the course of the
project. The bulk of the questions remained the same over the years for consistency with only a
HART Website:
https://portal.ct.gov/DCF/HART/Home

few changes made to reflect the new themes, committees, and activities that emerged as part of the
strategic planning that occurred mid-grant.
Child trafficking victims were also interviewed in year two as part of the baseline needs
assessment. Like the stakeholder interviews, the victim interview questions sought to assess
victims’ needs and experiences with services, CTDCF, the HART response, and other systems in
place to respond to child trafficking. The questions also sought to gather more information about
common risk factors and methods for recruitment that could help with the identification of future
victims. To conduct the interviews, CTDCF and ICF worked with HARTs Liaisons and Love146
to identify child trafficking victims and obtain the needed permissions from parents, guardians,
and the participants themselves. The interviews were then conducted by ICF in-person. During the
final year of the grant, ICF conducted another round of victim interviews to determine the impact
of the various elements for the project and collect ideas for future areas of focus for Connecticut
child trafficking services.
With the assistance of ICF, the CTDCF completed three other assessment activities during this
grant period. In 2017, the project stakeholders engaged in a strategic planning process to evaluate
their current progress and highlight priorities for the remainder of this grant period. This session
was facilitated by a consultant from the National Human Trafficking Training and Technical
Assistance Center. As a result of this process, the group concluded that their focus over the next
two years would be on labor trafficking, education/schools, and streamlining their current work to
better address gaps identified in the first phase of the evaluation.
As part of the cohort of evaluation partners for the trafficking grant cluster, ICF also administered
the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (Wilder) in year one and then again in the last quarters
12
of years three and five. The purpose of the survey was to measure changes in collaboration among
the HART members through the time period of the grant. Participants completed the survey during
a HART meeting and results were collected and analyzed by ICF.
Lastly, in partnership with ICF, one of the largest efforts was the administration of the Trafficking
Awareness Surveys using a pre- and post-test design to measure the impact of CTDCF trainings
on participants’ levels of knowledge, beliefs, and comfort or confidence in delivery of services.
This survey was also developed by the cohort of evaluation partners and consistently measured
over the course of five years.
What are Multi-disciplinary Teams (MDTs)?

In Connecticut, Multi-disciplinary Teams were established by the Children’s
Justice Act Grant to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of cases of
child abuse and neglect and ensure the protection and treatment of the child
involved. The teams are made up of stakeholders from several different
agencies who share information to provide a coordinated response. MDTs have
been established as a best practice because of their ability to reduce that
amount of trauma experienced by a family or child and facilitate the access to
needed services. MDTs often work in conjunction with Children Advocacy
Centers where children involved in suspected child abuse cases can provide
information necessary to the investigation of cases and receive preliminary care
in one place, reducing the burden on the child and non-offending caregivers.

Train Community Stakeholders

Training was a major component of CTDCF’s efforts to enhance services to child trafficking
victims. Currently, Connecticut legislation mandates training for law enforcement, schools K-12,
hospital emergency departments and urgent care facilities, superior court judges, prosecutors,
public defenders and other attorneys. Before the start of the project, CTDCF already had several
curriculums created including “Introduction to Child Trafficking in CT” for the general public and
“Child Trafficking Day 1 and Day 2”. The funding from this project allowed for the refinement of
the material and delivery more widely across the state to diverse audiences consisting of probation
staff, court personnel, law enforcement at all levels, legal representation at all levels, service
providers, schools K-12, medical providers including hospitals, physicians and nurses, universities
including schools of social work and medical students, Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) agents, and multiple community organizations including the faith-based community.
Additionally under this grant, CTDCF developed and delivered the “Child trafficking of Boys and
Male Bodied Youth” curriculum in response to a need for enhanced general knowledge about
human trafficking in boys and members of the LGBTQI community, adapted the “Into to Child
Trafficking in CT” curriculum to specifically meet the needs of Emergency Medical Services
(EMS), law enforcement personnel, medical providers, provided further training for foster care
parents through the “Training Series,” sought to decrease the number of children entering child
trafficking through the “Child Trafficking Youth Awareness” curriculum, and raise awareness of
human trafficking among the hospitality industry through “Introduction to Child Trafficking in
Connecticut for Connecticut Lodging Association.” The funds provided through this grant also
allowed the program to increase the number of certified facilitators for their trainings and other
human trafficking trainings such as the My Life My Choice curriculum and the Not a #Number 13
curriculum.
Because of the large number of mandated trainings, CTDCF originally struggled to fulfill the
training requests of the community. To solve this problem, more than 28 Train of Trainer (ToT)
courses were held where individuals in the community were trained to be certified facilitators in
the different curriculums and assist existing facilitators by taking that training and material back
to their communities. The train-the-trainer courses has been extremely successful and helped
spread trainings in schools, law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholder groups such as parent
and teacher associations.
CTDCF conducts faculty meetings once a year with all trainers, and curriculum updates are
completed annually too. All training curricula has been updated regularly. In the last quarter of the
grant, for example, CTDCF conducted five ToTs in order to increase its trainer capacity. ToT’s
were held for the following curricula: one ToT for the Youth Awareness Curricula, two ToTs for
Introduction to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Law Enforcement, one ToT for Child
Trafficking Training for Medical Providers/ Emergency Medicine and one ToT for Introduction
to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Emergency Medical Services. From these ToTs CTDCF
has increased its statewide capacity to 240+ trainers statewide.

Approved Curricula on the Training of Child Trafficking in CT
Introduction to Child Trafficking in Connecticut

This curriculum is designed to enhance an individual’s understanding of Child Trafficking. The training assists
participants in identifying victims of Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking (DMST) as well as receiving tips on how to
best respond and support identified trafficking victims. Participants will learn definitions, federal and state legislation
related to human trafficking, prevalence of DMST in CT, pathways to victimization, warning signs, impact to the
victims, and who are the buyers/exploiters of this crime. The training is 2 ½ hours and materials utilized are videos
and PowerPoint. CEU’s are available.
Introduction to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Law Enforcement
This curriculum is similar to the one outlined above with the exception that it is geared for police offices (both
municipal and state) and other law enforcement personnel. A special video has been developed to assist law 14
enforcement with identifying victims of human trafficking during routine traffic stops. This training is 2 ½ hours and
materials utilized are videos and PowerPoint.
Introduction to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Emergency Medical Services:
This curriculum is similar to the ones outlined above with the exception that it is geared for emergency medical
services personnel (Paramedics, EMT’s, and First Responders). EMS specific information and resources are included
to assist EMS with identifying victims of human trafficking during emergency responses in the community. This
training is 2 hours and materials utilized are videos and PowerPoint. CE’s and CEU’s can be provided.
Child Trafficking Training for Medical Providers/ Emergency Medicine
This curriculum is similar to the ones outlined above with the exception that it is geared for emergency medical
services personnel (physicians, nurses, social workers and any person that works within an emergency department,
hospital, clinic, physician’s office, etc.). Medical specific information and resources are included to assist medical
providers with identifying victims of human trafficking and opportunities to provide important medical services and
support to victims. This training is offered as a 1-hour training as well as an expanded version of 2-hours. Materials
utilized are videos and PowerPoint and also includes brief case activity(s).
Introduction to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Hotel/ Motel/ Lodging
This curriculum is similar to the ones outlined above with the exception that it is geared for hotels, motels and lodging
establishments. Specific information and resources are included to assist employees with identifying victims of human
trafficking while staying at such establishments. This training is 1 1/2 hours and materials utilized are videos and
PowerPoint.

Sex Trafficking of Boys & Male Bodied Youth
This curriculum is designed to enhance an individual’s understanding of Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking (DMST)
with emphasis on boys and male bodied youth. The training assists participants in identifying boys and male bodied
youth victims, understanding the unique warning signs and the impact on this population. Participants will learn
definitions, federal and state legislation related to human trafficking, prevalence of DMST in CT and who are the
buyers/ exploiters of this crime. The training is 2 ½ hours and materials utilized are videos and PowerPoint. CEU’s
are available.
Fostering in the best & hardest of times: Helping foster parents care for high risk kids and child victims of
commercial sexual exploitation (2-day training)
This course is designed for foster parents including components from four targeted curricula:
1) Introduction to Child Trafficking in Connecticut
2) Caring for High Risk Youth and Child Victims of Sex Trafficking
3) Understanding Girls: A Trauma Informed Perspective
4) Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking of Boys & Male Bodied Youth
Child Trafficking: What is it, how to see it, and how to respond to it - Day 1 and 2
This course provides a framework for understanding the complex issue of child trafficking by providing a framework
for responding in a well-prepared and collaborative manner. The roles of the Department, providers, law enforcement,
as well as other systems in addressing the problem will be examined. This course explores the prevalence of child
trafficking cases in Connecticut and provides an overview of national and state laws governing this work. Participants
will learn what it takes to successfully manage a child trafficking case. Specific information relating to boys and
LGBTQ+ youth will also be discussed. This is a full day training (6 hours) and is delivered by lecture with videos
and activities. CEU’s are available. This training is offered at the DCF Academy for Workforce Development. NOTE:
Day 1 and Day 2 must be taken together.
The second day of this course focuses on building engagement skills to work with youth and caregivers around issues
15
of child trafficking. Focus is also given to case planning for youth and families. Participants will learn about targeted
services to support youth who are at high risk of or confirmed victims of child trafficking. This course will conclude
with an expert panel presentation. This is a full day training (6 hours) and is delivered by lecture with videos and
activities. CEU’s are available. This training is offered at the DCF Academy for Workforce Development. NOTE:
Day 1 & Day 2 must be taken together.
Youth Specific Curricula
Youth Awareness on Child Trafficking
The Connecticut’s HART developed a 45 to 60-minute Youth Awareness presentation to educate youth ages 12 to 18
on child trafficking. This curriculum was vetted with youth across the state to ensure the content was impactful and
relevant to youth of this age range. The Youth Awareness presentation is a one-time educational opportunity to raise
awareness with the ultimate goal of providing the Not a #Number prevention groups to smaller groups of youth.
Youth Prevention - Not a #Number
Love146’s Prevention Curriculum, Not a #Number, is an interactive five-module curriculum designed to teach youth
how to protect themselves from human trafficking and exploitation through information, critical thinking, and skill
development. The program integrates a holistic view of the issue by focusing on respect, empathy, individual strengths,
and the relationship between personal and societal pressures that create or increase vulnerabilities. Through open
conversations, engaging activities, the use of media, and
opportunities for disclosures, participants find ways to move beyond awareness to behavioral change. For a preview
of Not a #Number, visit www.love146.org/curriculum-preview.
To schedule a training contact: [email protected]

Develop and Implement Child Advocacy Center (CAC) and Multi-

Disciplinary Team (MDT) Enhancements
MDTs and CAC’s play a critical part in providing services and care to child victims of abuse. In
2014 this role was further expanded as a result of Public Act 14-186 (S.B. 5040) which allowed
MDTs to review human trafficking cases. In April of 2018, this was further expanded so that all
child trafficking CTDCF Careline referrals go to an MDT coordinator, which was expected to
result in an increase of referrals that receive a MDT case review. CTDCF worked closely with
MDTs and CACs over the period of this grant to expand their capacity to serve child trafficking
victims in response to these legislative mandates. This close relationship was maintained through
representation of HART and MDT members at each group’s meetings which allowed for sharing
of information and collaboration.
CTDCF trained all MDT teams using their “Introduction to Child Trafficking in Connecticut”
curriculum and provided technical assistance. The two-pronged approach resulted in a consistent
yearly increase in the number of MDT members who felt equipped to handle child trafficking cases
as shown by satisfaction surveys. CTDCF also helped introduce several new protocols and
procedures for these teams including a forensic interview protocol, a standardized state-wide MDT
response protocol for child trafficking cases, and an automated data system where MDT could
submit case information and referrals in order to better child trafficking victims’ services. The two
groups also worked together to create a formal system for cross-jurisdiction collaboration.
Additionally, many MDT coordinators began several initiatives to better coordinate with HART
teams and respond quickly to the needs of child trafficking cases, such as MDT coordinators
attendance at CTDCF’s 48-hour response meetings, bi-monthly MDT conference calls to address 16
complicated cases, and smaller comprehensive case reviews for cases to allow for deeper and more
complex case discussion. Lastly, looking beyond the grant to meet the goals identified in the
strategic planning session in year three, MDT members from a couple different jurisdictions came
together to meet and discuss how to identify and address child victims of labor trafficking.
According to the Connecticut Children’s Alliance:

In 2016, 46% of MDT partners felt there were enough services to support
DMST victims in CT and 56% of MDT partners felt they had a clear
understanding of the system set up to respond to DMST victims in CT.
However, in 2017, 71% of MDT partners felt there were enough services to
support DMST victims in CT and 81% of MDT partners felt they had a clear
understanding of the system set up to respond to DMST victims in CT.
CCA 2018, Outcome Measurement System (OMS) Data.

Develop Child Trafficking Criteria for Providing Credentialing

Developing a credentialing process for service providers who want to serve child trafficking
victims is an important element of ensuring a sustainable pool of trained individuals prepared to
meet the needs of this population. Due to their expertise in developing curriculum and training
stakeholders, CTDCF was perfectly situated to develop the process and garner the appropriate
endorsements. During the grant, CTDCF explored an endorsement system and met with key
national stakeholders to develop criteria for credentialing but determined additional funding would
be needed to achieve their goal. The director of the HART program, Tammy Sneed, shared the
need of credentialing process across the country with federal partners in hopes to garner support
for this effort beyond the period of this grant.
Increase Judicial System Response to Child Trafficking Victims
Access to the judicial system, through both legal representation and vigorous prosecution of
offenders, were two needs CTDCF identified for child trafficking victims. To increase the pool of
lawyers able to provide legal supports to child trafficking victims, CTDCF subcontracted with the
American Bar Association to provide specialized training to lawyers. They also partnered with
Connecticut Legal Services to provide legal representation to victims. From an offender
prosecution standpoint, CTDCF worked with the Connecticut Human Trafficking Task Force in
responding to reported cases and collaborating in their prosecution. The task force is coordinated
by the United States Attorney’s Office and includes the Connecticut States Attorney’s Office, State
Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Homeland Security.
Domestic Child Sex Trafficking Webinar Series 17

The ABA Center on Children and the Law, in partnership with the Connecticut Department of Children and Families,
the Division of Public Defender Services/Child Protection/Juvenile Unit, and the Connecticut Human Anti-Trafficking
Response Team (HART), presented a four-part webinar series for attorneys who work with children and youth who
are victims or at risk of being victims of Domestic Child Sex Trafficking. Each webinar is described below, followed
by evaluation results for the series. Resources shared during the webinars can be accessed at:
https://abacenter.adobeconnect.com/ct_dcst
Domestic Child Sex Trafficking 101: This interactive webinar addressed the fundamentals of the justice system
response to Domestic Child Sex Trafficking. ABA Center on Children and the Law attorney Eva Klain covered the
legal response to child sex trafficking, including involvement with the child welfare or juvenile justice systems, the
range of case types, screening and assessment of risk, and provisions of Connecticut and federal laws. The session
also covered the victim’s trauma experience and how it may affect behavior and provide guidance on how to
communicate with victims through a trauma-informed approach.
Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/ymic6lyEiqE
Trauma-informed Legal Advocacy: This webinar focused on the fundamentals of trauma and its effects on child
clients, including complex trauma and children’s coping strategies. Leslie Jones of the Montgomery County (PA)
Public Defender Service explained the implications of clients’ trauma histories on legal practice and provided tools
and resources on how to integrate trauma knowledge into daily legal practice on behalf of victims of Domestic Child
Sex Trafficking.
Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/C5P4Gj8xVAw

Judicial Responses to DCST: Runaway Youth and Youth Missing from Care: The runaway youth population
presents an opportunity for courts to identify and appropriately respond to victims of sex trafficking and youth at
risk of victimization. Afua Addo, Manager of Gender and Justice Initiatives at the Center for Court Innovation,
spoke about trauma-informed responses, specialized trafficking dockets, and the tools and resources available to
judges.
Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/8tKWu1rgDFc
Juvenile Defenders: Representing Victims of Sex Trafficking: This webinar examined substantive and systemic
challenges to defending clients who are victims of domestic child sex trafficking. Sharonda Bradford, Deputy in
Charge – Compton Branch, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, identified approaches to better identify
and address the needs of youth who may be victims, explained how trauma plays a role in client interactions, and
described practices that can enhance juvenile defenders’ responses to child survivors of sex trafficking.
Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/5IUo49tun1o.
Advocate in the Connecticut State Legislature

Connecticut’s trafficking laws have been historically challenging and do not currently fully align
with the TVPA. Recognizing the difficulty this legislative roadblock presents for child trafficking
victims, CTDCF prioritized advocating for legislative changes. One way this was done was
through the Trafficking in Persons Council (TIP), with the HART project director, Tammy Sneed,
as an appointed member. TIP consults with government and non-governmental organizations (both
state and federal) to develop recommendations to strengthen state and local efforts to prevent
trafficking, protect and assist victims, prosecute traffickers, and provide updates and progress 18
reports on trafficking in Connecticut. The TIP Council reports annually to the Connecticut General
Assembly.
Every year for the last several years, new legislation has been proposed to strengthen Connecticut’s
response to trafficking. Attempts to align Connecticut’s language with the TVPA have not been
successful. In 2018, Connecticut’s grade from Shared Hope dropped from a B to a C as a result
of CTs inability to align its laws with the TVPA.1 However, the Connecticut legislature passed
four major bills during this grant that made some improvements to the systemic response to child
trafficking.
 Public Act 14-186 (S.B. 5040) mandated an MDT Response be made available to all
victims of child trafficking.
 Public Act 15-195 (H.B. 6849) broadened the conditions under which human trafficking
can be considered a crime for a minor, increased services to victims, allowed for
wiretapping, increased minor victims’ ability to access crime victim compensation and
expanded conditions for courts erasure of juvenile police and court records.
 Public Act No. 16-71 (H.B. 5621) set age of prostitution eligibility at 18, required stricter
tracking of cases by judicial officers and required lodging businesses to provide annual
training and awareness campaigns and keep guest transactions for at least six months.
 Public Act No. 17-32 revised the penalties for human trafficking and required the attorney
general to develop and report on proposed certification in state contracts to conform with
1
https://sharedhope.org/PICframe8/reportcards/PIC_RC_2018_CT.pdf

the provisions of the federal Executive Order 13627, strengthening Protections Against
Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts.
 Public Act 17-129 mandated that the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office and municipal police
chiefs must annually report on efforts to combat human trafficking to the Trafficking in
Persons Council.
 Public Act 17-190 updated the Child Advocacy Center and MDT case criteria and services
standards.
Additionally, CTDCF was part of efforts to create legislation to protect child trafficking
disclosures to service providers from being used against them in court proceedings.
Looking forward, there were two proposed bills during the 2019 legislative session that would
have addressed some of the current legislative challenges and continued misaligned with the
TVPA; the legislation did not pass. Additional language has been proposed to ensure the State
Trafficking in Person Law is aligned with the TVPA. Without alignment prosecution of cases and
services for victims will continue to be impacted. Connecticut continues to be faced with the
challenge of providing victim services for child trafficking victims. The youth’s attorneys are on
occasion blocking services due to the risk of youth sharing incriminating information that may be
subpoenaed and used against them by law enforcement and the courts. The total number of youth
that have been encouraged not to participate or denied access to services is over 25 youth to date.
Toward the middle of the 2017 legislative session a piece of legislation was put forth to provide
privilege communication rights to Love146. Surprisingly there was resistance to this legislation
by other advocates in the field of sexual assault and domestic violence. Due to the resistance the
legislation was withdrawn. This issue was brought before the Trafficking in Person (TIP) council 19
in the fall of 2017 as a potential legislation recommendation by TIP. A subcommittee of TIP
worked tirelessly to develop language in which all the major agencies agreed. The discussion at
the subcommittee level included the difference between confidentiality and privileged
communication. HB 7399 was proposed during the 2019 legislative session to address this matter,
but some of the language proposed by the subcommittee was not included. In addition, language
was included to change the mandated training requirements from annually to every three years.
Again, the proposed legislation did not move forward. The TIP council is working on new
proposals for the upcoming 2020 short session that reduces the recommended changes and breaks
the legislation into two separate pieces, an attempt to pass the most important issues.
Collaborate with Faith Based Networks
Before the start of this grant, CTDCF noted an increase in faith-based network’s interest in
understanding and combatting the impacts of child trafficking. During this grant, CTDCF
established a collaboration with The Underground, a group of churches with a ministry focus of
working with youth at risk of sex trafficking.
Community awareness is a strong initiative of The Underground; they present in churches, learning
centers/universities/town schools, and conferences utilizing the HART curricula in which many of
the Underground members are trained. The awareness events include experts of subject matter
and will typically draw crowds of 100-200 attendees with various backgrounds and interests. The
Underground utilizes these events to engage people to stay with them through The Underground
Newsletter which provides communities with information about: news of rescues and arrests,
statewide awareness events, trainings, volunteer and advocacy opportunities, and prayer nights.

The Underground has funded 100 Emergency

The Underground is a grass-roots faith-based Backpacks for Greater Hartford Local Police
initiative dedicated to ending sex trafficking in Departments, two Wilderness Camp
Connecticut. Since it began in late 2013, The Luncheons for Love146 which service minor
Underground has grown to over 1,800 members victims of child trafficking with an adventure
from almost 200 churches and ministries. The day in August 2019 and another in November
Underground uses a unique model that allows 2019. The Underground purchased 5,000
churches to pool human and financial resources hotline cards for front line workers. They
to work cooperatively toward the common goal of completed a PSA with Tribune Media. In its
ending modern-day slavery. Because of that
first two weeks, this PSA reached through
cooperation, The Underground is able to put all
donations directly toward benefiting victims and
Broadcast Media: 923,287 Adults ages
survivors in Connecticut. The hope of The 18+ (51% overall reach with 22% being
Underground is to gather the faith-based reached 3 or more times) and 365,771 Adults
community and engage them to serve in the fight ages 25-54 years (44.4% overall reach, with
against sex trafficking. With that goal in mind, The 18.7% being reached 3 or more times).
Underground has undertaken several initiatives
As a collaboration, The Underground has
aimed at education, prevention or survivor care.
created Partnerships Against Trafficking
Humans (PATH) in order for Connecticut to
show unity in eradicating trafficking in all its
forms. The Underground is actively getting
various groups, churches, businesses and
municipalities to join PATH.
The Underground purchased, created and 20
distributed 516 back to school back packs for high risk youth and confirmed victims of child
trafficking. Each back pack contains all the school products a child needs to succeed, a note of
encouragement, and a hotline piece that case workers use to provide awareness to youth and assure
youth that need help that they can get help by contacting the National Human Trafficking Hotline.
The Underground continues to mobilize local outreach activities and has established numerous
teams throughout Connecticut to distribute Human Trafficking Hotline Signage pursuant to Public
Act 17-32, An Act Concerning Human Trafficking. Major outreach occurred in Hartford through
students at UCONN and a group called The Hartford Project.
This continues to be a great way to engage the community in spreading awareness. Prior to teams
distributing signage, a 45-minute training is provided to equip the volunteers. The training covers
trafficking definition and terms, child trafficking CTDCF HART Data, and instructions on how to
interact with local businesses.
The Underground is establishing a Mentor Program for young adults who want to live
independently. This is in the development stages and The Underground is currently working on
policies. Services are expected to begin in 2020. The Underground continues to provide resources
for young adults such as food, housing assistance, furniture, and to assist in safe shelter.
The Underground has partnered with Amirah New England to bring a transitional housing program
to trafficked victims in Connecticut. This program will prioritize young adults ages 18-24 with a
2-year, 3-phased program of care, that is supported through community funding and no cost to the
survivor. Besides therapeutic services on site, survivors will have opportunities to learn life skills,
go to school or learn a trade in a home setting. The Underground successfully bridged numerous

churches to raise funds in order to repair and rehab a home for Amirah. The program will open
January 2020 to serve eight young women.
The Underground is partnering with FUSE to bring emergency beds to rescued adult victims in
Connecticut. This unit has been secured, rehabbed, and is fully furnished. This is a short stay
program that will allow victims to rest in a safe, secure place. Food and shelter will be provided
while referral sources determine where family is or a pathway of care which may include detox,
rehab, and housing placement. There is no cost to the victim. The Underground is funding the
rent for 18 months during the pilot.
Develop a Computer Data Collection Reporting System
Data gathering is a critical component of the work being done through HART. The previous system
was inefficient and did not allow for CTDCF to easily pull trends and identify problems. CTDCF
quickly identified the need for a unified computer data collection system that would allow for
HART Liaisons across the state to quickly enter data. Through conversations with IT personnel at
CTDCF and in coordination with ICF, key data indicators were identified for the new system. The
DCF Program Information Exchange (PIE) System was determined to be the best route for direct
data entry by HART Liaisons and the system went live in October of 2016.
The goal of PIE is to allow HART Liaisons to enter their information directly and then for CTDCF
to be able to run reports. CTDCF entered historical data from 2014-2016 to allow for analysis of
trends and gathered data from LOVE146’s Survivor Care Services. CTDCF continues to have
difficulties with timely data entry due to HART Liaison capacity. CTDCF fully transitioned away
from utilizing an Excel-based data tracking spreadsheet as of July 2018. The historical data allows
CTDCF to track youth that may have been victimized on multiple occasions. CTDCF currently 21
have a number of generic automated reports and data extract functionality within the system and
is being utilized by CTDCF personnel to produce quarterly reports. There are still remaining
challenges with user adaptation of the system however, and CTDCF continues to provide training
and coaching to ensure all data is entered correctly and in a timely manner.
Build Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Infrastructure
As part of its efforts to identify and respond to emerging trends in child trafficking victim
demographics and service provision, CTDCF recognized the need to improve its current data
collection methods. The baseline needs assessment informed the understanding of current services
and gaps in services at the outset of the grant. In response, CTDCF created the infrastructure
needed to enact a CQI plan. They increased data collection ability through implementation of the
PIE data system to better track victims who are referred to Regional HART Liaisons and developed
outcome measures for HART to determine impact of programs and help identify gaps in services.
Though CTDCF is still undergoing some challenges in pulling the necessary data from PIE, the
hope is that developed infrastructure will help improve future data efforts and automation of
outcome reports. CTDCF was able to gather data for Love146’s Survivor Care Services both from
Love146 and through the Results Based Accountability (RBA) Report Cards required by the
CTDCF.
The following is an overview of the information collected by the Love146 Survivor Care Program.

REFERRALS BY DCF AREA OFFICE

25
2017 (N=169)*
20
15
10 20 20 17 17
16 14 16
5 7 11 2 4 6 7 6
0
*6 youth were not affiliated with a DCF area office
22
REFERRALS BY DCF AREA OFFICE

4/1/19-9/30/19 (N=63)*
10
5
8 8 8 7 7
6
3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1
0
*3 youth were not affiliated with a CTDCF area office

TRENDS IN RAPID RESPONSES BY DCF REGION

2014-2018
40
35 2014
34 2015
30
2016
25 28
26 2017
25
20 23 2018
22
19 20 20
15 18 18
16 16 16
10 13 13 12 13 12
5 7 7 7
5 3 4 4 6 1 6 0
0
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6
23

RAPID RESPONSES BY DCF AREA OFFICE

4/1/19-9/30/19 (N=59)*
10
5 9
7 8
5 6
3 4 4 1 4 4 2 0 0
0
*2 youth were not affiliated with a CTDCF area office
RAPID RESPONSE OUTCOMES

4/1/18-9/30/18 (N=59)
Percent of youth who reported intent to

85%
change brhavior
Percent of youth who reported learning

97%
new information.
24
0% 50% 100% 150%

10/1/18-3/31/19 (N=59)

86%
change brhavior

97%
new information.
0% 50% 100% 150%

4/1/19-9/30/19 (N=59)

91%
change brhavior

97%
new information.
0% 50% 100% 150%

LONG-TERM SERVICES BY DCF AREA OFFICE

2017
12
10
8
6 12 11
10
4 7 8
6 5 6 5 6
2 1 4 1 2
0
LONG-TERM SERVICES BY DCF AREA OFFICE

4/1/19-9/30/19 (N=59)
12
10
8
6 25
10
4 7 7 7 8
6
2 4 1 2 4 0 0 1 2
0

LONG-TERM SERVICE OUTCOMES

4/1/18-9/30/18
Percent of youth who "successfully discharged" 58%
from Long-Term Services (N=21)
Percent of youth who “successfully discharged” 100%
who report Love146 helped them (N=10)
who completed or made considerable progress…
regularly attending school or who have… 55%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
At Discharge At Intake

10/1/18-3/31/19
Percent of youth who “successfully discharged” 92% 26
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

4/1/19-9/30/19
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Create New Forms for Intra-Agency Data Sharing, Research Design and
Information Dissemination
CTDCF recognized the challenges of both sharing case information between agencies and sharing
best practices across the state and the country. In response, CTDCF engaged in several efforts this
grant to both develop partnerships and create new forums for information sharing. CTDCF created
formalize partnerships that allowed for case data sharing with the Connecticut Institute for Refugee
and Immigrants (CIRI), CT Coalition Against Trafficking (CTCAT) and TIP. Additionally,
CTDCF started sharing case information for the purposes of prosecution with MDTs as well as
with the US Attorney, States Attorney, FBI, State Police and local law enforcement.
CTDCF also increased its outreach efforts to educate the community about child trafficking and
reach potential victims. CTDCF partnered with Love146 to run a series of social media ads
targeting Connecticut youth and ran a public awareness campaign for the general public with Fox
61. During this grant, CTDCF has also presented at many webinars, trainings and conferences in
both Connecticut and across the country. Additionally, HART hosted their own annual conference
to bring together law enforcement, child protective services staff, lawyers, social workers,
therapists, teachers, forensic interviewers, medical professionals and child advocacy center staff
to learn from regional and national experts how to strengthen their response to child abuse and
exploitation cases across Connecticut. Lastly, CTDCF continues to disseminate information
through the CTDCF HART webpage, the HART HELPS biannual newsletter, and TIP council
meetings.
27
HART HELPS, Spring Edition
Source: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DCF/HumanTrafficking/pdf/HART-Helps-Spring-2019---Final.pdf?la=en

Exhibit 2-1: HART Logic Model
28

Chapter 3
Program Evaluation
ICF Incorporated, LLC (ICF) served as the evaluation partner for this grant. Led by Principal
Investigator, Samantha Lowry, the evaluation employed an action research model with ongoing
feedback throughout the life of the award to share back interim findings and integrate evaluation
results into the statewide approach. This chapter presents the results of the baseline needs
assessment and outcome evaluation for the CTDCF HART Project.
Overview of Evaluation Design

To facilitate an effective and robust evaluation of the HART Project, ICF in partnership with
CTDCF, conducted data collection in three phases that spanned the five-year grant period. Phase
I of the evaluation occurred in the first year of the project. During this phase ICF conducted a
baseline needs assessment that provided a snapshot of needs of the field as they existed at the
beginning of the study. Phase II of the evaluation occurred in the third year of the project. During
that phase ICF conducted a progress assessment to begin to uncover how the needs changed and
improved with this federal funding and provide information to CTDCF to help them improve their
processes and inform their strategic plan moving forward. During the third phase in year five, ICF
conducted a final assessment to compare outcomes over time. This report will outline the activities
undertaken during the project period and the progress made towards achieving the before outlined
outcomes and goals.
Key Research Questions
The evaluation was governed by several key research questions and intended outcomes to be
measured:

 What is the HART structure and current membership? What is the level of inter-/intra-
agency collaboration?
 What is the level of knowledge and awareness about child trafficking before and after
HART/CTDCF training? Which professions have increased awareness and knowledge
as a result of HART/CTDCF training?
 Does training increase readiness and comfort responding to child trafficking? How does
that vary by profession?
 What other forms of training are needed?
 What forms of child trafficking are being identified and by which agencies? What
demographic groups are being underserved or unserved?
 Does the expansion and restructuring of HART improve the number and type of child
trafficking victims identified?
 What types of services are offered/needed for child trafficking victims?
 What are the current victim service responses to child trafficking in the State? How has
that changed as a result of HART?
 To what extent are current services fulfilling victims’ needs?
 What are the barriers to providing victim services?
 How does the expansion of HART influence policies, practices, and legislation to
prevent and combat child trafficking?
Evaluation of the current system and services will allow CTDCF to identify gaps and generate
strategies to fill those gaps and enhance services. It will also improve CTDCF’s knowledge of 30
effective practices, which will improve service delivery. In the long term, these improvements will
result in increased service capacity and improved outcomes for children. CTDCF’s improvement
of inter- and intra- agency collaboration and infrastructures will also improve services and child
outcomes through the creation of a specialized systems of care, which can quickly and effectively
respond to the needs of child trafficking victims. To monitor the continued services and ensure
CTDCF employs data driven decisions and responses, the CQI strategies will ensure the data
collection and reporting system is providing accurate data. Lastly, the increase of data collection
and cultivation of new forums for information dissemination will lead to the ability to propose and
pass bills addressing the needs of child trafficking victims in the Connecticut legislature, more
information shared in professional journals and increased resources for the scientific study of
human trafficking and child trafficking.
Study Methodology and Data Collection
ICF worked in collaboration with CTDCF to develop and conduct a baseline needs assessment in
order to understand existing challenges around identifying and responding to child trafficking
victims. ICF used information from the kick-off meeting to guide the sampling approach and the
instrument design for the data collection component of the evaluation. Data collection for the
evaluation involved three components: 1) electronic surveys of stakeholders who make up the
HART, HART Leadership, Regional HARTS, and each of the 17 MDTs; 2) in-person and
telephone interviews of select key stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecutors, victim service
providers, foster care providers, DCF) who make up HART, HART Leadership, Regional HARTs,
and MDTs; and 3) interviews with individuals who have been identified by select victim service
providers as child trafficking victims. In addition to these research activities, ICF also administered

the Wilder Collaboration Survey—cluster level tool—to the State HART at three time points over
the duration of the five-year grant. ICF also analyzed the Trafficking Awareness Surveys—second
cluster level tool—administered by trainers before and after each introductory training.
Stakeholder Perspective and Statewide Results

Instruments were developed in early 2015 and IRB approval was received on June 2015. The DCF
IRB application was subsequently submitted approval certificate was received in October 2015.
The survey was administered in October 2015 and concluded in January 2016. Analysis of the
stakeholder survey and interviews, Wilder Collaboration Inventory, and the Trafficking
Awareness Surveys (TAS) were conducted to provide an initial feedback loop. Baseline findings
were shared during the strategic planning session in Phase II to provide feedback to HART and
assist with forming the new direction of the initiative. These findings were also shared during the
HART national webinar in September 2018 and final findings from the second wave of surveys in
September 2019.
Methodology
The statewide stakeholder survey was sent to individuals across the state of Connecticut who
provide services or may come into contact with victims of child trafficking. The survey was sent
to an estimated 180 key stakeholders. Key stakeholders included child welfare personnel, victim
service providers, clinical providers, foster care providers, legislators, and federal, state, and local
law enforcement. Survey items were constructed from validated measures identified from the
literature and include items related to the following outcomes:
 Stakeholder awareness of trafficking 31
 Stakeholder collaboration
 Trafficking victim identification
 Service outcomes for trafficked youth
Survey questions were focused on understanding the level of knowledge and awareness around
child trafficking, the level of preparedness to identify and respond to child trafficking victims, the
level of collaboration between agencies to respond to child trafficking victims, the factors that
influence the identification of victims and the challenges around identification, and the types of
services child trafficking victims need as well as reported gaps in services. The survey tool was
updated for the second wave and included similar measures to the first administration as well as a
few additional domains of focus that assess key elements of CTDCF’s response to trafficking over
the last three years of the grant.
A total of 195 surveys were received from stakeholders across the state: 142 in 2015 and 53 in
2019. Five responses were excluded due to duplication and respondents opting-out of the survey.
The remaining 190 surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics to provide basic information
regarding the range of victim services in Connecticut, perceived gaps in and challenges to service
provision, emerging trends in victim services, and recommendations on how to improve the field’s
response to child trafficking victims throughout the state. Where appropriate, additional statistical
tests were used (e.g., independent samples T-tests) to compare the baseline survey with the
outcome survey to assess whether the differences were statistically significant. Findings from these
analyses are presented and discussed below.

Interviews were conducted at two time points with 14 stakeholders who all had varied service roles
– these roles included law enforcement, HART coordinator, HART liaisons, trainers, and those
who work with the CAC/MDTs. Some stakeholders were interviewed at both time points and
others only had a single interview. The HART Coordinator and HART Project Lead were
interviewed during the progress assessment as well and shared insights during regular conference
calls. The perspective of stakeholders in Connecticut was valuable to gather insight on the
provision of services offered to trafficking victims from those who worked directly with child
trafficking cases. Stakeholders provided information on the state of victim services in Connecticut
and provided recommendations for the future of services for child trafficking victims.
Respondent Background
Survey respondents represented a diverse range of organizations, geographic services areas, and
level of experience with child trafficking victims. 2 Most commonly, respondents worked within
the child welfare system (e.g., DCF) – 32% (see Exhibit 3-1). Smaller numbers were reported for
other organizations, including 12% of respondents were a part of municipal law enforcement, 10%
were a mental health provider or counselor, 10% were part of a child advocacy center, and 8%
were victim service providers.
Exhibit 3-1: Respondent Position

2015 2019
Overall 32
(n=139) (n=51)
Victim Service Provider 8% 8% 8%
Victim Advocate/Advisor 7% 7% 10%
Child Advocacy Center 10% 9% 12%
Forensic Interviewer 5% 6% 2%
Health Care Provider 2% 3% 0%
Mental Health 10% 11% 8%
Provider/Counseling
Mentoring 2% 0% 6%
Foster Care Provider 1% 1% 2%
Parental Caregiver Service 2% 1% 4%
Provider
Congregate Care Provider .5% 0% 2%
Education/Schools 2% 1% 4%
Vocational/Job Training .5% 0% 2%
Child Welfare (DCF) 32% 29% 41%
Juvenile Parole (DCF) .5% 1% 0%
Probation/Detention (CSSD) 3% 3% 2%
Juvenile Defense Attorney .5% 1% 0%
Municipal Law Enforcement 12% 16% 2%
2Respondent backgrounds were similar across both the 2015 and 2019 surveys, so the combined numbers are
reported here. The breakdown of respondent background by survey year can be found in the Exhibits.

2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
Sheriff’s Department 0% 0% 0%
State Police 2% 3% 0%
Federal Law Enforcement .5% 0% 2%
U.S. Attorney’s Office .5% 0% 2%
District/County/State Attorney 5% 5% 4%
Judge 0% 0% 0%
Other 13% 12% 16%
Over half of respondents (53%) were early to mid in their career, with 10 or less years of experience
while another quarter of respondents (26%) had 15 years or more of experience. While respondents
had a wide range of experience in their field, their years of experience with cases involving victims
of child trafficking was much smaller – 41% had 1-5 years of experience and only 22% had more
than 5 years of experience with victims of child trafficking (for more information see Exhibit 3-
2).
Exhibit 3-2: Years of Experience
Years of Experience Years of Experience
in Field of Work with cases involving victims
2015 (n=126) 2019 (n=46) 2015 (n=95) 2019 (n=32) 33

1-5 years 32% 45% 45% 29%
6-10 years 20% 14% 9% 18%
11-14 years 12% 4% 4% 6%
15+ years 27% 26% 6% 10%
Survey respondents represented all six regions of Connecticut. Over half of respondents (58%)
served Regions 3 (20%), 4 (19%), and 5 (19%) (shown in Exhibit 3-3). Thirty-seven percent (37%)
of survey respondents served the remaining 3 regions and 16% of survey respondents served the
state of Connecticut as a whole.
Exhibit 3-3: Respondent Region Served
2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
Region 1 15% 16% 14%
Region 2 11% 9% 14%
Region 3 20% 17% 26%
Region 4 19% 19% 18%
Region 5 19% 20% 16%
Region 6 11% 9% 16%
State 16% 11% 29%

2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
Federal 1% 0% 4%
Other 7% 7% 6%
Survey respondents represented the various collaboration bodies involved in the HART Project
(see Exhibit 3-4). About half (52%) of survey respondents served on the CTDCF HART, with 17%
serving on the HART Leadership team and 35% serving as a Regional HART team member.
Survey respondents represented each of the 17 multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in the state, with
greater representation from New Haven (7%), Waterbury (7%), Bridgeport (6%), and Windham
(6%) MDTs (Exhibit 3-5). Respondents also reported their involvement in task forces: 11 percent
in 2015 and 25 percent in 2019. Of the 15% of stakeholders involved in another task force, the
most common task forces were the Connecticut Coalition Against Human Trafficking (CTCAT),
Governor’s Task Force on Justice for Abused Children (GTFJAC), and the Trafficking in Persons
Council (TIP).
Exhibit 3-4: Respondent HART Role
2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
Team Member 35% 30% 51%
Leadership Team 17% 10% 37%
Member
34
None 49% 58% 26%
Exhibit 3-5: Respondent MDT

2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
New Haven 7% 7% 10%
Milford 6% 4% 8%
Norwalk 4% 4% 4%
Stamford 3% 4% 2%
Bridgeport 6% 6% 6%
Torrington 4% 5% 2%
Windham 6% 5% 10%
Hartford 5% 5% 4%
MDT 14 5% 6% 2%
North Central 4% 4% 2%
Central 4% 4% 4%
East Central 5% 7% 2%
Tolland 5% 5% 4%
Danbury 3% 4% 0%
Waterbury 7% 7% 6%

2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
New London 6% 7% 4%
Middlesex 5% 6% 4%
None 28% 25% 37%
Most of the stakeholders who were interviewed participated on the state HART and were the main
point of contact from their agency. Stakeholders reported a shift from HART being more DCF-
populated to it being multi-disciplinary and including more diverse backgrounds and level of
professionals.
Findings
IDENTIFICATION OF VICTIMS
A primary goal of the HART project was to increase identification and provision of services to
child trafficking victims. To assess the progression of this goal, respondents were asked how
victims came to the attention of their organization, the number of cases their organizations handled,
and the number of cases that were confirmed child trafficking (i.e., Domestic Minor Sex
Trafficking [DMST] or Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children [CSEC]), and then the
findings were compared between the two time points.
35
What are some common indicators or risk factors of CSEC/DMST cases?
 A common indicator is youth that are “lacking something” – this is hard to identify because
it is not typically associated with trafficking. What is missing to the youth can range from not
having tangible items to a lack of stability and loneliness. Youth then tend to look to an outside
source to fill what is missing. We need to focus on third parties who are trafficking youth and
giving them expensive material items and making them see clients.
 The red flags we see include unknown whereabouts, branding tattoos, weapons, and drugs.
 In the state, more than 60% of those who are trafficked are living at home during the time of
the victimization, so we need to learn more about what to look for other than the typical red
flags and risk factors such as being system-involved.

Exhibit 3-6 presents the number of cases organizations reported handling. In 2015, 18% of
stakeholders reported handling zero cases, and 49% reported serving 1-4 cases. The number of
cases served was overall low, with only 33% of organizations serving 5 or more cases. In 2019,
9% of stakeholders reported handling zero cases, and 21% reported serving 1-4 cases. Seventy
percent of organizations served 5 or more cases.
Exhibit 3-6. Number of Child Trafficking Cases Handled
in the Last year
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25% 2015
20% 2019
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 10+
Because the number of cases served are combined (with options encompassing multiple numbers, 36
such as 1-2), it is difficult to directly test the change in the number of cases served because the
exact number of cases served is unknown. However, the number of cases handled in 2015 and
2019 (shown in Exhibit 3-6) can by compared using a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. This test was
significant, indicating that the distribution of answers to the number of cases served was
significantly different between the two years. The Exhibit below shows that the distribution shifted
to the right and, given the significant finding, this indicates that the number of cases served
significantly increased from 2015 to 2019. More information on the number of cases served can
be found in the Exhibit below.
Exhibit 3-7: Number of Cases Served
2015 2019
(n=92) (n=34)
How many victims of 0 18% 9%

DMST/CSEC 1-2 23% 9%
handled by your Org 3-4 26% 12%
in last year?*** 5-6 9% 12%
7-8 1% 6%
9-0 3% 8%
10+ 20% 44%

2015 2019
(n=88) (n=29)
Of those, how many 0 38% 7%
were confirmed 1-2 35% 35%
DMST?*** 3-4 9% 17%
5-6 5% 3%
7-8 2% 7%
9-0 1% 3%
10+ 10% 28%
2015 2019
(n=86) (n=29)
were confirmed 1-2 39% 32%
CSEC?** 3-4 8% 7%
5-6 2% 7%
7-8 2% 3%
9-0 0% 3%
10+ 9% 24%
2015 2019
(n=85) (n=32) 37
were DCF involved 1-2 35% 16%
already?*** 3-4 19% 9%
5-6 7% 9%
7-8 4% 3%
9-0 2% 3%
10+ 11% 41%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
Clients come to the attention of organizations through various sources, however, according to the
survey responses, CTDCF is the main organization that connects victims to the services they need
– 60% of stakeholders reported victims came to their organization through the CTDCF Careline
or CTDCF referrals in 2015, and in 2019 that number went up to 68%. In 2015, the other most
common ways victims came to the attention of the organization were criminal investigations (30%)
and participation in MDTs (22%). In 2019, victims more commonly came to the attention of
organizations via referrals from other agencies (31%) and participation in MDTs (31%) (see
additional details in Exhibit 3-8).
“[There are] better services for youth in regions that are at the table more.”

Exhibit 3-8: How Victims Come to the Attention of the Organizations
2015 2019
(n=139) (n=51)
Careline 30% 29%
CTDCF Referrals 30% 39%
Referrals from Other Agencies 20% 31%
Community Tips/Referrals 6% 6%
Walk-Ins 7% 0%
Community Outreach* 4% 10%
Missing Persons Reports 8% 10%
Participation in MDTs 22% 31%
Criminal Investigations 30% 30%
Calls for Service 12% 8%
Other 8% 8%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
Stakeholders also reported whether their organization had any formal procedures or policies that
provide instructions for how to identify and respond to child trafficking victims (refer to Exhibit
3-9). In 2015, 21% of respondents indicated their organizations had formal policies in place,
whereas in 2019 this number doubled to 41% reporting their organizations had such policies in 38
place.
Exhibit 3-9: Are there formal procedures or policies in your organization on how to
identify and respond to child trafficking victims?
2015 2019
Yes 21% 41%
No 29% 14%
Unsure 12% 6%
What challenges do stakeholders face identifying CSEC/DMST victims?

 One of the biggest challenges is self-identification on the part of trafficking victims.
Because of the previous law enforcement approach of seeing victims as criminals, victims
feel guilty or shameful talking about their trafficking experience.
 Stakeholders also believe that victims are falling through the cracks because a case is not
accepted for investigation. Practices differ between regions. In one region, a HART consult
is conducted if a child has been missing for 48 hours to see if they are at risk of all
trafficking – this should be case in all regions, but that there is no way to enforce this
practice.

REFERRALS
Stakeholders were asked to report on their organizations’ volume of both receipt cases via referrals
from other sources and the extent to which they refer cases to other sources. Stakeholders rated
whether their organization receives case referrals (i.e., in-referrals) and refers out cases (i.e., out-
referrals) on a Likert scale (0=Never, 1=Rarely, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, and 4=Always). Exhibits
3-10 and 3-11 present the in- and out-referrals for both 2015 and 2019. In 2015, the most common
in-referrals were from child welfare and municipal law enforcement. In 2019, the most common
were child welfare and victim advocates. However, the most out-referrals in 2015 were to child
welfare and mental health providers; and in 2019 the most out-referrals were to victim service
providers and mental health providers.
Exhibit 3-10: In-referrals of Cases
In-Referral 2019 In-Referral 2015
1.33
Other 1.23
2.00
Courts (Prosecutors, Public Defenders, Judges) 1.84
2.10
Federal Law Enforcement 1.78
2.23
State Police 1.97
1.68
Sheriff’s Department 1.35
2.62 39
Municipal Law Enforcement 2.44
1.70
Juvenile Defense Attorney 1.51
2.43
Probation/Detention (CSSD)** 1.70
2.32
Juvenile Parole (DCF) 1.97
3.45
Child Welfare (DCF) 3.12
2.04
Education/Schools 1.65
2.27
Congregate Care Provider 1.84
2.17
Foster Care Provider* 1.70
2.41
Mental Health Provider 2.00
2.47
Health Care Provider 2.06
2.70
Child Advocacy Center 2.32
2.69
Victim Advocate/Advisor*** 1.93
2.62
Victim Service Provider** 1.99
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

Exhibit 3-11: Out-referrals of Cases

Out-Referral 2019 Out-Referral 2015
1.33
Other
1.26
Courts (Prosecutors, Public Defenders, 1.86
Judges) 1.66
2.24
Federal Law Enforcement
1.72
2.05
State Police
1.78
1.37
Sheriff’s Department
1.22
2.29
Municipal Law Enforcement
2.33
1.50
Juvenile Defense Attorney
1.47
1.65
Probation/Detention (CSSD)
1.42
1.40
Juvenile Parole (DCF)
1.43
3.10
Child Welfare (DCF)
3.22
1.65
Education/Schools
1.37
40
1.81
Congregate Care Provider
1.52
1.95
Foster Care Provider
1.51
3.52
Mental Health Provider**
2.9
3.13
Health Care Provider
2.82
3.19
Child Advocacy Center*
2.49
3.26
Victim Advocate/Advisor***
2.51
3.64
Victim Service Provider***
2.75
0 1 2 3 4
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
Comparing 2015 to 2019 shows some significant differences in stakeholder responses. The starred
sources in the Exhibits above indicate those that significantly changed from 2015 to 2019. For in-
referrals, victim service providers, victim advocates, foster care providers, and probation and
detention all significantly increased, indicating that cases were referred to these sources more
frequently in 2019 than in 2015. For out-referrals, victim service providers, victim advocates, child

advocacy center, mental health providers, and federal law enforcement all significantly increased,
indicating that cases were more frequently referred out from those sources in 2019 compared to
2015.
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
Another goal of the HART Project was to raise awareness about child trafficking and increase
stakeholders’ understanding of child trafficking. Survey respondents were asked about their
primary sources of knowledge. Overall, the most common source of knowledge was CTDCF
trainings, with direct work with victims and direct work with other agencies being other common
sources (Exhibit 3-13). Exhibit 3-12 shows the differences in sources of knowledge for 2015 and
2019, with statistically significant differences denoted (*). Using a chi-square significance test,
professional/educational training, scholarly articles/reports, and direct work with other agencies
significantly increased between 2015 and 2019, indicating that these sources of knowledge for
child trafficking were significantly more common in 2019.
Exhibit 3-12: Main Sources of Knowledge
2% 2019 2015
Other
6%
6%
Other Forms of Media
5%
18%
41
News Media
19%
55%
Direct Work with Other Agencies***
29%
41%
Direct Work with Victims/Cases
32%
31%
Scholarly Articles/Reports**
17%
24%
National Trainings/Conferences
21%
37%
Professional/Educational Training*
25%
47%
CTDCF Trainings
45%
0% 20% 40% 60%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

Exhibit 3-13: Main Sources of Knowledge on Child Trafficking Victims

2015 2019
Overall
(n=139) (n=51)
CTDCF Trainings 45% 45% 47%
Professional/Educational 28% 25% 37%
Training*
National Trainings/Conferences 22% 21% 24%
Scholarly Articles/Reports** 21% 17% 31%
Direct Work with Victims/Cases 35% 32% 41%
Direct Work with Other 36% 29% 55%
Agencies***
News Media 19% 19% 18%
Other Forms of Media 5% 5% 6%
Other 5% 6% 2%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
TRAINING RECEIVED AND FUTURE NEEDS

Trainings are a major component of CTDCF’s strategy to increase identification and awareness of
child trafficking victims. In the year prior to the baseline survey, in 2015, CTDCF implemented
training initiatives with great success and progress. Within that year, all MDTs across Connecticut
were trained on the Introduction to DMST/CSEC curriculum. CTDCF also implemented a new 42
Caring for High Risk Youth and Victims of CSEC/DMST training to further engage the foster care
system in identifying and responding to child trafficking.
In the survey, respondents indicated the number of professional training hours per year that are
required by their organizations. In 2015, the majority (83%) of stakeholders indicated that their
organizations had no training requirements. By 2019, this number of individuals with organization
having no requirements decreased to less than half (42%) of stakeholders; this difference is
statistically significant, indicating that significantly more organizations had some sort of
requirement for training in 2019 compared to 2015 (see Exhibit 3-14).
Exhibit 3-14: Hours Per Year of Training Required by Organization

2015 2019
(n=87) (n=29)
No requirement 83% 42%
1-6 hours 13% 42%
7-10 hours 1% 3%
11-20 hours 2% 10%
21-40 hours 0% 3%
41+ hours 1% 0%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

Although CTDCF has made progress in implementing new training initiatives and trainings have
been successful in increasing knowledge and awareness of child trafficking, stakeholders have
reported on the need for further expansion and enhancement of training initiatives. When asked
what types of training they would like to receive more of,
the most common answers in 2015 were investigative
techniques (34%), service delivery around child “Train people system-wide so that
trafficking (32%), and methods for identification of child when you lose people, you don’t
trafficking victims (26%). In 2019, stakeholders reported lose the work.”
wanting more training on service delivery around child
trafficking (26%), investigative techniques for child
trafficking cases (22%), and prosecuting child trafficking cases (20%). Using a chi-square test for
comparison of means between 2015 and 2019, there were significant differences for wanting
training on basic knowledge of child trafficking, methods for identification of child trafficking
victims, and investigative techniques for child trafficking cases (see Exhibit 3-15). Importantly,
these differences all showed a significant decrease in the percentage of stakeholders interested in
that type of training. This indicates that training on those topics increased between 2015 and 2019
and stakeholders felt that they had better access to training in those areas.
Exhibit 3-15: Additional Training Needs
4% 2019 2015
Other
5%
43
16%
Labor Trafficking
0%
14%
Youth Awareness of Child Trafficking
0%
14%
Prevention of Child Trafficking
0%
18%
Housing Child Victims of Trafficking
0%
18%
DMST of Boys
0%
20%
Prosecuting Child Trafficking Cases
21%
Investigative Techniques for Child 22%
Trafficking Cases* 34%
Methods for ID of Child Trafficking 12%
Victims** 26%
26%
Service Delivery Around Child Trafficking
32%
Basic/General Knowledge of Child 4%
Trafficking** 16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

Respondents also had the opportunity to offer their recommendations for enhancing and expanding
CTDCF’s training initiatives. Recommendations included:
• Training on how technology and social media intersects with human trafficking;
• Training on medical service delivery; and
• Training and information on how to connect with the FBI on human trafficking cases.
TYPES OF SERVICES
The HART Project also sought to obtain information on the organizations and services offered to
child trafficking victims. This includes information on record management in the organizations,
types of services offered, and how often services are utilized.
Respondents were asked what types of information their organization’s record management
collects. Exhibit 3-16 shows the responses to this question, with the most common responses being
victim referral information, victim demographic information, and services provided to victim. In
2015, 19% of stakeholders reported that their organizations had no record system. In 2019, this
number dropped to 4% (a statistically significant difference) indicating that the number of records
management systems increased between 2015 and 2019. In terms of the specific information
captured, victim demographic information, services provided to victims and victim status all
significantly increased between 2015 and 2019.
Exhibit 3-16: Data within Records Management Systems
2015 2019 44
(n=139) (n=51)
Victim demographic information** 25% 43%
Location of victimization 19% 28%
Victim referral information 27% 37%
Victim placement at referral 20% 29%
Services provided to victim** 22% 37%
Victim status** 16% 31%
Criminal case information 22% 33%
Other 4% 2%
No record management system** 19% 4%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
Stakeholders also reported the types of services offered by their organization. The most commonly
offered services were victim advocacy, health care and medical services, and mental health
services and counseling. In 2015, one-third of stakeholders reported their organizations offered
victim advocacy (32%) and mental health services (35%) and one-quarter offered health care and
medical services (24%). In 2019, 37% of organizations offered victim advocacy and mental health
services and 35% offered health care. Despite the increase, these differences were not statistically
different. However, there were significant increases in the number of organizations offering family

and guardian support services, job training, employment, information and referral, and life skills
(see Exhibit 3-17).
Exhibit 3-17: Services Offered by Organizations

2015 2019
(n=139) (n=51)
Victim Advocacy 32% 37%
Health Care/Medical 24% 35%
Services
Mental Health 35% 37%
Services/Counseling
Dental Services 7% 12%
Housing/Shelter 16% 14%
Family/Guardian Support 17% 31%
Services**
Mentoring Services 13% 22%
Education 10% 16%
Job Training*** 2% 12%
Child Care 2% 2%
Employment* 1% 6%
Drug/Alcohol Treatment 11% 18% 45
Protection/Safety Services 19% 26%
Food 11% 12%
Clothing 11% 14%
Transportation 11% 16%
Information and Referral** 18% 35%
Crisis Intervention/24-hour 18% 29%
Hotline
Victim Compensation 9% 16%
Life Skills* 9% 20%
Long Term Care 0% 20%
Other 4% 4%
No Services 9% 4%
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
Respondents were asked how often different services were utilized by their organization, using a
Likert scale (1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, and 5=Always). Exhibit 3-18 reports
the means across respondents for 2015 and 2019 for each possible service. The most commonly
used services in both 2015 and 2019 were medical services and mental health services. For every
service, the average increased from 2015 to 2019, but this difference was only statistically
significant for 6 of the services: education, job training, employment, information and referral,

victim compensation, and life skills. This significant increase indicates that organizations utilized
these services more frequently in 2019 than in 2015.
Exhibit 3-18: Services Utilized by Victims
2015 2019
(n=65) (n=24)
Victim advocacy 2.95 3.13
Health Care/Medical 3.08 3.14
Services
Mental Health 3.05 3.39
Services/Counseling
Dental Services 1.88 2.00
Housing/Shelter 2.39 2.56
Family/Guardian Support 2.51 2.95
Services
Mentoring Services 2.00 2.50
Education* 2.06 2.67*
Job Training* 1.57 2.10*
Child Care 1.60 1.70
Employment* 1.53 2.00*
Drug/Alcohol Treatment 2.02 2.40
Protection/Safety Services 2.46 2.57 46
Basic Care 2.27 2.45
Transportation 2.28 2.70
Information and Referral* 2.91 3.48*
Crisis Intervention/24-hour 2.50 2.90
hotline
Victim Compensation* 2.14 2.76*
Life Skills** 1.98 2.68**
Other 1.73 2.00
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
COLLABORATION
Through the HART Project, CTDCF sought to take a coordinated and collaborative approach to
responding to child trafficking victims. The goal behind this was to develop inter- and intra-agency
collaboration to sustain service delivery.
Stakeholders were asked the extent of cross-collaboration (1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes,
4=Often, and 5=Always) within and between their organization and other organizations when
responding to child trafficking cases. Exhibits 3-19 and 3-20 present the average responses for
intra-agency (State HART, Regional HART, and MDT) and inter-agency (Regional HART and
MDT) findings across various collaboration indicators. Overall, collaboration was fairly low
across many response options in 2015.

Exhibit 3-19: Intra-agency Collaboration

2015 (n = 38) State HART Regional HART MDT
2019 (n = 13)
2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019
Formal written 1.56 2.22 1.84 3.00* 3.68 4.29
agreements, contracts, or
MOUs
Shared facility space 1.54 2.00 1.50 2.75** 2.13 3.43**
Shared materials, tools, 2.29 3.46** 2.24 2.75 2.78 3.67**
or other resources
Shared staff 1.41 2.44** 1.25 2.29* 2.00 2.86
Provided/received 2.38 3.62*** 2.36 2.63 3.12 3.22
training with other orgs
Shared client information 2.34 3.58** 2.67 3.38 4.03 4.30
as appropriate
Shared record keeping 1.93 2.67 2.07 3.00 2.32 3.67**
management information
systems data
Participated in joint 2.00 3.33*** 2.31 3.38* 3.70 4.44
conferences or case
reviews
Jointly provided 1.97 3.09** 2.00 2.88 3.13 3.63
programs or services 47
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10
For intra-agency, the highest level of collaboration was for providing training with other
organizations for State HART; sharing client information and participating in joint conferences for
Regional HART; and participating in joint conferences for MDT. For inter-agency, the highest
amounts of collaboration occurred for jointly providing services for Regional HART and
participating in joint conferences for MDT. When comparing between years, the means increased
for every category, indicating an overall increase in collaboration, and some of these changes were
statistically significant. Specifically, there were statistically significant intra-agency increases in
collaboration in the following areas:
• Sharing materials (State HART, MDT)
• Sharing staff (State HART, Regional HART)
• Providing training with other organizations (State HART)
• Participating in joint conferences (State HART, Regional HART)
• Jointly providing programs (State HART)
• Having formal written agreements (Regional HART)
• Sharing facility space (Regional HART, MDT)
• Sharing record keeping management information systems data (MDT)

Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory

The Wilder was administered with HART members at three points in time to measure
collaboration. From Year 1 to 5, collaboration significantly increased with a Shared
Vision being the highest overall factor. Detailed results presented in Appendix B.
OVERALL SCORE: 3.97 3.93 4.06

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
There were also statistically significant inter-agency increases in collaboration in the following
areas when comparing Regional HARTs and MDTs:
• Sharing record keeping management information systems data (Regional HART, MDT)
• Participating in joint conferences (Regional HART, MDT)
• Having formal written agreements (MDT)
• Sharing materials (MDT)
• Sharing staff (MDT)
Overall, there were more statistically significant changes/improvements when measuring intra-
agency collaboration, and the organization with the most improvement across collaboration types
was within the State HART.
Exhibit 3-20: Inter-agency Collaboration
48
2015 (n = 38) Regional HART MDT
2019 (n = 13)
2015 2019 2015 2019
Formal written agreements, 1.35 1.80 2.03 3.40**
contracts, or MOUs
Shared facility space 1.22 1.88 1.50 1.80
Shared materials, tools, or other 1.58 2.25 1.93 3.00**
resources
Shared staff 1.21 1.80 1.39 2.60**
Provided/received training with 1.82 2.38 2.27 3.00
other orgs
Shared client information as 1.96 2.75 2.87 3.33
appropriate
Shared record keeping 1.60 2.60* 1.68 2.60*
management information systems
data
Participated in joint conferences 1.59 2.50** 2.27 3.83***
or case reviews
Jointly provided programs or 1.81 2.57 2.41 3.17
services
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

BARRIERS
Identification of victims is crucial to responding to child trafficking, however that is just the first
step. Additionally, offering proper and needed services to those who are identified is equally
important in improving outcomes for these youth. In order to gain more information on these
important steps, stakeholders were asked to report on barriers to identifying victims as well as
barriers to access to services for child trafficking victims.
Barriers to Identification
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree (1=strongly disagree,
3=neither agree nor disagree, and 5=strongly agree) with potential barriers to identification of
victims in their organization. Exhibit 3-21 presents these barriers by year. The largest barrier across
both years is the reluctance of victims to self-identify. Other highly rated barriers include lack of
funding and resources, lack of training about DMST/CSEC victims, and lack of knowledge around
human trafficking laws. Comparing 2015 to 2019, only one of the barriers significantly changed
from 2015 to 2019: lack of training. In fact, stakeholders reported that lack of training was less of
a barrier to identifying victims in 2019 than in 2015, which was a prominent goal for HART.
Exhibit 3-21: Barriers to Identification of Child Trafficking Victims, 2015 and 2019
Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree
Reluctance of victim to Reluctance of victim to
self-identify self-identify
Lack of Lack of 49
training/information training/information
about victims** about victims**
Lack of Lack of
funding/resources (e.g., funding/resources (e.g.,
staff, time, money, staff, time, money,
space) space)
Lack of screening tool Lack of screening tool
and/or protocols to and/or protocols to
identify victims identify victims
Lack of knowledge Lack of knowledge

around human around human
trafficking laws trafficking laws
Lack of Lack of
interagency/interorganiz interagency/interorganiz
ational collaboration ational collaboration
Lack of coordination Lack of coordination

with other organizations with other organizations
Language barriers Language barriers

Barriers to Access
Respondents were also asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with potential
barriers for DMST/CSEC victims accessing and receiving services (shown in Exhibit 3-22).
Across both 2015 and 2019, the most agreed upon barrier was that victims did not trust authorities.
Interestingly, for almost all barriers to access, stakeholders reported greater agreement in 2019
compared to 2015, and this difference was significant for five of the barriers: organization
equipped to respond to needs of victims, organization had formal procedures in place, staff were
knowledgeable, staff received adequate training, and victims did not trust authorities. These
significant increases mean that stakeholders felt these issues were less of a barrier to access in
2019 than in 2015, indicating that the barriers were significantly addressed by the HART project.
Exhibit 3-22. Barriers to Access, 2015 and 2019
Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Neutral Agree

DMST/CSEC victims did DMST/CSEC victims did
not trust authorities*** not trust authorities***
Our organization had Our organization had

enough staff to adequately enough staff to adequately
serve the number of victims serve the number of
who need assistance victims who need…
It was challenging to It was challenging to
coordinate with other coordinate with other
organizations to serve organizations to serve
victims victims 50
Had formal Had formal
procedures/protocols in procedures/protocols in
place for how to respond to place for how to respond to
victims for services** victims for services**
Was well-equipped to Was well-equipped to
respond to the needs of respond to the needs of
victims*** victims***
Staff at our organization Staff at our organization
were knowledgeable about were knowledgeable about
how to respond to how to respond to
victims*** victims***
Staff at our organization Staff at our organization
received adequate received adequate
training/technical assistance training/technical
to respond to victims*** assistance to respond to…
Victims were aware of Victims were aware of
existing services in our existing services in our
community to help them community to help them
DMST/CSEC victims were DMST/CSEC victims were

likely to seek out services likely to seek out services
on their own on their own
***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10

What challenges do stakeholders face in responding to CSEC/DMST cases?

 Lack of funding to provide for the needs of victims is an agreed upon hindrance among
stakeholders. Staff work beyond their role and long hours in order to build rapport with the
victim, but do not (and in most cases unable to) bill for overtime pay. Often the provider roles
needed to support child trafficking victims are not permanent (or even paid) staff roles. At the
end of a grant like this, there is extreme concern that important roles will not exist anymore,
thus creating inconsistencies in the response to cases.
 Another difficulty is providing consistent support for victims and ensuring that they are in a
healthy mental state throughout the cycle of their case and afterwards. Children can be missing
for months, and in these cases, service providers reiterate to youth that they will always be able
to come back and receive support. It is even more difficult to support youth who are turning
18 but still need services and their cases take years to resolve.
 Other challenges include: getting into schools to educate youth about human trafficking, a
desire for more work on targeting the buyer, labor trafficking, and increasing the understanding
that child trafficking and child abuse cases can overlap.
What are the gaps in services for CSEC/DMST victims? How can HART help in overcoming
these challenges?
 A major challenge is being able to provide all the trafficking-specific resources to victims that
they need. Foster homes get filled and sometimes youth do not want to live in DCF foster
homes, but their choices are limited. It can be difficult to provide victims with services that 51
would be helpful toward their recovery due to limited funding to even access ways to meet
their “basic needs”.
 Stakeholders spoke about the need for long-term services that follow the youth. Moving
placements and going from one service provider to another can reinforce negative feelings of
self-worth in the trafficking victim. In the current state, youth may be missing out on the full
capacity of services because inconsistent services are not effective. Having a consistent
provider allows the youth to build trust and receive support providers with trafficking-specific
knowledge.
 A general theme discussed among stakeholders was the need for consistency within staff as
well – once the grant ends, knowledgeable and passionate staff will be lost and new staff will
need to be trained. High staff turnover is a major concern. Paid positions such as HART
Liaisons or a HART Coordinator would help people invest more into doing the work.
“State-level victim compensation is not at

the same level as federal victim
compensation.”

RECOMMENDATIONS
Stakeholders were also asked open ended questions about whether they had suggestions for
improving the services their organization provides to child trafficking victims, suggestions for
improving collaboration of organizations to identify and respond to victims, and any additional
suggestions. The most common responses were:
Suggestions for Improving Services
Staff & Training  More staff to provide interventions

 Additional training on identification and red flags
 Continued education
 Funded trainings
Law Enforcement  Training law enforcement on red flags

 Working with law enforcement to provide services
Medical Evaluation  Standardize a protocol for medical evaluation of potential

victims
Data  Create a centralized database to safely store victim and

services information
Suggestions for Improving Collaboration
How to improve  Increased funding 52

collaboration  Provide list of organizations that are possible collaborators
 Hold regular meetings to establish and cement relationships
 Within each organization have a collaboration liaison so there
is effective and consistent communication
Who to collaborate with  Need to collaborate more with law enforcement so they will
refer to victim services when appropriate
 Collaborate with school systems and train them on
identification and red flags
 Collaborate with defense attorneys and train them on
identification and red flags
Additional Suggestions
 HART as an active participant in the MDT

 Longer-term coordination and continuation of services
 Raising awareness that there are programs and services available
 Funding to support the continuation of anti-trafficking efforts
 A consistent state-wide response to trafficked victims (not so decentralized)
 Being mindful of other populations besides sex trafficked victims: labor trafficking,
young boys and men

Administrative Data
Prior to this grant, the annual number of child trafficking victims reported to CTDCF were well
under 100 each year, ranging from 2 to 79 victims. Over time, the number of referrals drastically
rose to more than 200 youth annually and continued at that level for three consecutive years. In
2018, the number of boys referred reached an all-time high at 27 youth. At the beginning of the
grant, one third of the referrals African American/Black (35%) and one quarter were Caucasian
(26%) and Hispanic (24%). In 2018, the racial makeup of referrals shifted to nearly half being
Hispanic (46%)—double the number five years prior.
Exhibit 3-23: HART Referrals, 2014-2018 (n=851)
2018 183
27
210
2017 195
17
212
1
2016 184
17
202
1
2015 122
10
133
53
2014 92
2
94
2013
79
2012
44
2011
18
2010 Number of Transgendered

36 Number of Girls
Number of Boys
2009
Number of Referrals
26
2008
2
0 50 100 150 200

Exhibit 3-24: Race/Ethnicity of HART Referrals, 2014-2018 (n=851)
46%
40%
37%
35%
African American/Black
29% 29% Caucasian
28% 28%
26% 26% 26% Hispanic
24% 24%
Asian*
19%
Multi-racial
16%
Other
10% 10% Unknown
8% 8% 9%
6% 5%
3% 2% 2% 3%
0% 0% 1%
0% 1% 0%
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
The distribution of referrals by region in 2018 was fairly consistent with most regions referring
10-15% of the total, and Regions 5 and 6 with the most referrals, 23% and 22% respectively. This
was a shift from Region 1 leading the way in the previous three years—totaling an estimated 50
referrals each year and dropping by half.
54
Exhibit 3-25: Residence at Time of Exploitation, 2014-2018 (n=851)
Relative/Other Home
Unknown
2%
AWOL/ 7%
Runaway
9%
Congregate 11%
Care
57% Parent/Guardian
Home
14%
Foster Home
The residence of the child or youth at the time of their exploitation for the last 4-years remains
well over 50% Parent/Guardian Home; average from 2014 to 2018 presented in Exhibit 3-25. This
data element reinforces HART’s efforts to educate the various communities across the state.

Training Evaluation and Trafficking Awareness Surveys

One of the main priorities for HART and CTDCF was to expand and increase the trainings offered
on child trafficking to various agencies and communities across the state. Since the start of the
grant, CTDCF has conducted more than 700 trainings, with a continual increase in the volume of
requested trainings from year to year. In the last six months of the grant alone, 117 trainings were
conducted reaching more than 2,791 participants.
Methodology
The Trafficking Awareness Survey (TAS) was developed by the cluster of evaluators for this grant.
TAS focused on three main constructs: level of knowledge, beliefs, and level of comfort. Level of
knowledge 3 contained 12 survey items where the trainee was asked to rate their knowledge on a
scale of 1 to 5, with 5 meaning complete knowledge or expertise. The survey asked questions
regarding risk factors of trafficking, definitions, and other terminology. The second section,
beliefs, included only 4 items and asked about victim culpability, such as whether minors choose
to engage in prostitution for money. These questions ranged from 1 to 10 with 10 being a
completely true statement. Level of Comfort was assessed in 6 items. Again, these ranged from 1
to 10, with 10 meaning that the trainee was completely comfortable with the practice or situation
described. For example, trainees were asked about their comfort “having a conversation with a
youth to identify if s/he is currently being sexually exploited or is at risk of sexual exploitation.”
Sample constructs and additional detail on the scales are provided in Appendix C.
Each set of questions was asked prior to the training to understand the trainee’s level of knowledge, 55
beliefs, and comfort before delivery of the content and then again following the training to
determine the effectiveness of the training. These surveys were administered throughout the five-
year period and ICF analyzed the surveys annually to share back findings with the trainers and
State HART.
Trainee Background and Demographics
Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics (n= 13,522; 6,583 pre and 6,128 post, 811
incomplete) and significance testing to assess how trainings changed or improved level of
knowledge and awareness of child trafficking in Connecticut. Exhibits 3-26 to 3-28 provide a
descriptive background of trainees. More than half of participants were female (57%) and had
more than 10 years of experience (50%), averaging 12.7 years of experience.
13,522 700+
TOTAL SURVEYS TRAINING EVENTS
3After initial assessment of the new tool, the Knowledge construct was adjusted from a 5-point to 10-point scale.
However, due to implementation issues, this scale was not adjusted widely and the majority of surveys remained on a
5-point scale and were analyzed accordingly.

Exhibit 3-26: Trainee’s Field of Work (n=5,764)
Law Enforcement 33%

Education 18%
Child Welfare 12%
Service Provider 9%
Juvenile Justice 1%
Community Member 1%
Legal Community 1%
Other* 25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
*Other consists of medical personnel such as nurses, EMTs, paraprofessionals,
hospitality staff, and many more.
Exhibit 3-27: Trainee’s Position at Current Organization (n=5,664)

Law Enforcement Officer 31%
Teacher 9%
Caseworker 8%
Mental Health Provider 7%
Counselor 5%
Local-Level Supervisor/Administrator 4%
Foster Parent 2%
Child Protective Investigator 2% 56
Probation Officer 2%
Nurse 2%
Foster Care Provider 1%
Victim Advocate 0%
Doctor 0%
Other* 26%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
*Other consists of administrative staff, courtroom personnel, case managers,
clinicians and other medical personnel (EMTs), firefighters, and many more.
Exhibit 3-28: Race & Ethnicity (n=5,923)

Caucasian 70%
African American 12%
Hispanic/Latino(a) 11%
Multiple 3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1%
Other 2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Findings 4
As shown in Exhibit 3-30, each scale changed in a positive direction. In other words, average
knowledge increased when comparing the score prior to the training to the level of knowledge
after the training. Trainees came in with little knowledge and left more knowledgeable. In terms
of beliefs, the statements were rated as being very false at the beginning and then after the training
they shifted more so in the direction of being completely false, which is the desired direction based
on the curriculum and how the construct was created. The most amount of change was seen in the
level of comfort. Coming into the training, most attendees were on the uncomfortable side of the
spectrum. However, after the training the average drastically improved with the average rating
rising to 6.6 out of 10, meaning trainees were very comfortable after learning the content.
An independent samples t-test was used to compare participants’ scores before and after the
training. For each of the three constructs there was a significant improvement between the before
and after training scores.
Exhibit 3-30: Overall Scores (n=6,256)
Average BEFORE the Average AFTER the

Construct
Training Training
2.1 3.5
Average Knowledge** A Little Knowledge Advanced Knowledge
2.6 2.1
Average Beliefs** False Completely False 57
4.8 6.6
Average Comfort** A Little Uncomfortable Very Comfortable
Across all fields of work, average knowledge also increased when comparing the score prior to the
training to the level of knowledge after the training. Trainees came in with little to no knowledge
and left more knowledgeable. Child Welfare staff came in slightly more knowledgeable and left
even more knowledgeable compared to participants in other fields.
Exhibit 3-31: Level of Knowledge by Field of Work (n=851)
Average Scores BEFORE Average Scores AFTER
2.5 3.6
Child Welfare**
A Little Knowledge Advanced Knowledge
1.8 3.2
Education**
No Knowledge Knowledgeable
2.2 3.5
Law Enforcement**
A Little Knowledge Advanced Knowledgeable
2.2 3.5
Service Provider**
2.1 3.5
All Fields of Work
4 * Indicates the difference between means is statistically significant, p<.05

** Indicates the difference between means is statistically significant, p<.01

In terms of beliefs, the statements were rated as being false at the beginning and then after the
training they shifted more so in the direction of being completely false. Most notably, this shift for
law enforcement participants shows progress in the state. Early on, the, average belief scores did
not change before and after the trainings for law enforcement and that is no longer the case. Belief
scores among participants in other fields shifted to some extent from false to completely false.
Exhibit 3-32: Beliefs by Field of Work (n=851)
2.3 1.9
Child Welfare**
Completely False Completely False
2.6 2.3
Education**
False Completely False
2.6 2.1
Law Enforcement**
2.5 2.0
Service Provider**
2.6 2.1
Across all Fields of Work
Similar to the overall rating, each of the fields showed progression from discomfort coming into
the training to being quite comfortable following the session. Child Welfare trainees, however,
came in more comfortable than their counterparts in other fields and had the highest average rating
following the training (7.0 – Very Comfortable). This child welfare population had lower scores
58
in the earlier portion of the grant and are now coming in with higher levels of comfort to start with.
Exhibit 3-32: Level of Comfort by Field of Work (n=851)
5.5 7.0
Child Welfare**
Somewhat Comfortable Very Comfortable
3.8 5.8
Education**
Uncomfortable Comfortable
5.0 6.7
Law Enforcement**
A Little Uncomfortable Very Comfortable
4.9 6.8
Service Provider**
4.8 6.6
Across all Fields of Work
Overall, for all three constructs, there was a significant difference before and after the training.
Knowledge, beliefs, and level of comfort all changed positively. There were some questions within
the constructs where many participants still had lower ratings after the training, including:
 Knowledge of agency’s process for identifying sex trafficked youth;
 Knowledge of agency’s referral process;
 Knowledge of services available in community to treat sex trafficked youth; and

 Level of comfort with directly asking youth if s/he is trading sex for money, survival
needs, or other items of value.
Youth Perspective
This section highlights the themes that emerged from interviews with child trafficking survivors
across the state. Preliminary insight was provided from the perspective of the youth victims to
provide interim recommendations to HART on identification and provision of services for child
trafficking victims. A second round of interviews was conducted to determine whether and if the
recommendations from the earlier years of the grant had been addressed.
Methodology
ICF conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with child trafficking victims (n=14) in
Connecticut in order to capture qualitative data on their experience and needs. ICF developed a
victim interview protocol that was geared toward gaining a comprehensive assessment of victim
needs and experiences with CTDCF and with other systems that are in place to respond to child
trafficking. Similar to the key stakeholder interviews, interviews with victims were used to collect
information related to study outcomes such as victim services for child trafficking victims,
including gaps in services, challenges with accessing services, and victim identification. For
example, interview protocols included questions about common risk factors for trafficking as well
as methods for recruitment, which could be useful in understanding and explaining challenges that
key stakeholders have with identifying victims.
Both ICF’s IRB and the DCF IRB were required to review the study procedures involving child
victims. DCF IRB approval took an extended period of time and as a result, the victim interviews 59
were delayed and occurred in 2016. HART Liaisons and Love146, in coordination with CTDCF,
were responsible for identifying youth to participate and securing parental/guardian consent.
Youth verbal assent was obtained by ICF at the time of the interview to ensure all study procedures
were fully described and the assent form was thoroughly reviewed by the research team.
Given the intensive planning and coordination that was needed for the first wave of youth
interviews, additional time was built into the timeline for the second wave to allow youth readiness
to guide when interviews will occur and coordinate accordingly. The number of victims prepared
to participate has been less than desired and lengthening of the timeline was an attempt to boost
their ability to participate.
Respondent Demographics
Interviews were conducted with teen-aged survivors aged 14 to 17, many of which had run away
several times or moved from placement to placement. Each youth was in a different place of
recovery, had a variety of experiences and pathways to services, and resided in several placement
locations. When asked where the youth were from, the common theme was Connecticut in the first
set of interviews. The second round include only two youth originally from Connecticut.
“I can’t just [tell] my mom because she’s going to call the cops and I don’t want her to call the cops.
I’m going to get killed and [she] doesn’t know how these people act, but I do.”

60
____________
Note: Information above includes only the baseline wave of youth demographics as a means to compare.
A total of 14 youth were interviewed, 8 in first wave and 6 in the second wave. Initially more than
two dozen youth were recruited for interviews in the second wave, however, due to changing
circumstances with placement, incidents, and other situations, only 6 were able to be interviewed.
One male and 13 female survivors were included in total, with all females in the initial group.
Youth were spread across the state and the majority were in the South Central portion of the state
in the follow-up interviews. One 14-year-old participated in the follow-up interviews and
otherwise there was a similar breakdown by age.
Youth Findings
How did youth survivors obtain knowledge about Human Trafficking?
When were they first identified as victims?
Most of the youth survivors (86%) had some prior knowledge of what the term “human trafficking”
meant before their disclosure, and most youth self-identified as a trafficking victim in the
interview. Two youth did not reference being a victim throughout the interview and when asked if
s/he identify as a survivor, the youth revealed that they do not. However, there was a striking
disconnect between recognizing the term and understanding the various forms of human
trafficking and how they relate to what the youth were experiencing. There were a variety of ways
the youth had first learned about human trafficking. Most of the youths’ initial exposure to the

term was from the internet – specific sources included a Facebook video about a trafficking scam
and news articles. Schools had provided very limited exposure to what trafficking may look like
in the real world, therefore, youth consistently shared that what they were experiencing “in the
life” was not what they thought human trafficking truly was until they were rescued and someone
helped to put the pieces together for them. Several stories were shared where youth could have
been identified sooner if the people in their lives had a better understanding of human trafficking.
The places and people that taught these young survivors about human trafficking included therapy,
Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) social workers, long-term care program (i.e.,
Love146), and hospital staff. One of the survivors was identified as a victim through a police sting,
while the other participants were identified as victims later through disclosure while in care.
What types of services did youth survivors receive?
 Services were defined by the participants and included a wide range of programs,
organizations, behavioral health services, and trainings. Youth spoke about in-home
programs, probation, family therapy programs, detention facilities, the role of the Department
of Children and Families from their viewpoint, Not a Number, My Life My Choice, several
local facilities (e.g., Grace Farms and Waterford Country School), detention facilities, and a
variety of other systems and supports that provided some type of service.
 Journey House, for example, was home to a few of the youth survivors. It was described as
“a locked up facility for runaways, those that had been sexually exploited, and for drug users.
If you have nowhere to go or until they find somewhere else for you to go – it’s placement
for kids, especially those on parole.” Although the educational opportunities offered at
Journey House were seen in a positive light and many staff were highlighted for their strict 61
adherence to the rules and attentiveness to the youth’s needs, it was not a desired location
according to survivors and resembled the “control exerted by their traffickers.”
 Love146 was brought up in all interviews and known for the care backpacks and comforting
staff that were “highly involved in [their] care.” This was the only service that was described
as long-term and unbounded, which youth found to be gravely important. A few youth did not
know much about human trafficking, even during their trafficking experience, until Love146
further educated them. Youth also felt supported by Love146 consistently being there for them
and being “just a phone call away.”
“Love146 has made a very huge impact on the whole broad spectrum of human
trafficking in the nation. They’ve really educated me; they’ve really supported me…
And they helped me along that road of becoming the young woman that I am today.”
How were youth survivors first connected to services?

Participants walked through their journey with services to capture when they were first identified
and how they were connected and referred to the various service organizations that provided care.
DCF was the most common source (63%) of identification and referral among the initial group of
survivors. Those five survivors were identified by a DCF worker through a conversation and
description of the youth’s experiences. Youth described this conversation in many ways, and in
several cases, youth had been in placement or DCF care for a couple years before they were

 Youth survivors had a fear of law enforcement and expressed that their
limited exposure was due to a lack of trust and negative experiences with
being treated as criminals. Victims did not see police as a place for help.
 Comfort was paramount! Survivors desired a balance of rules and comfort

given the important role that service providers play in their lives. The youth
MAJOR THEMES
emphasized that an honest opinion was needed along with a longer term
support system. The adults in their lives changed often and bonds were
frequently broken.
 The message to Judges was to look beyond what is on paper and listen
to the survivor’s perspective. Youth wanted to be more involved in the
process and to speak directly to the Judge. “Judges typically lock up youth,”
which youth were open about and cited as the reason to continue running.
 Victims overwhelmingly agreed that they did not have a say in the
types of services received, nor did they feel in control of their own
lives/care.
62
identified as a victim. Most of the youth were subsequently placed in a residential program or
secure facility following identification and rescue. Four of the survivors in the second group were
introduced to Love146 through the mental health facility or while they were in the hospital, and
one survivor was introduced to Love146 through the police department. For youth that were more
recently identified—within the last two years—the identification and referral was more immediate.
Based on the descriptions the youth survivors provided, DCF made an initial referral to Love146
as the first step in providing human trafficking-specific services.
How did youth survivors describe the services provided by the Department
of Children and Families (DCF)?
DCF was often described as the rule maker and authority and less of a service provider in each of
the interviews. Youth commonly referred to DCF as the entity that “took [them] away from their
family.” DCF was considered by half of the youth to be the least helpful service they have received.
Youth survivors described DCF as being insensitive to their needs; one youth shared that their
parent was informed of the private details shared with DCF, and another youth had their placement
preferences ignored. A theme that was consistent in half of the interviews was general
Love146 was the most comforting service provided. The rapid response by Love146
caused mixed emotions while in crisis but was later described as the first step to
recovery and the one support system that lasts forever.

inattentiveness and unavailability of DCF. Being DCF-involved meant that there was a stigma
attached to the youth as being a “bad kid” and there was an unshakeable feeling of low self-worth
when “no one actually cares [about them].”
Survivor Recommendations
Each survivor was asked to provide recommendations about how to best help survivors of human
trafficking and to speak about how providers can improve services for youth at risk for trafficking
in Connecticut. These recommendations from survivors included guidance about raising
awareness regarding available services, connecting youth to the appropriate services, and ways to
ensure survivors feel comfortable seeking services or telling their story.
AWARENESS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Participants shared recommendations for how various groups of people and places could raise
awareness about human trafficking, including schools, law enforcement, and parents/guardians.
One of the main priorities for raising awareness
was to educate youth in schools. Multiple youth
survivors stated that they did not become aware “More awareness, even for those not in the
of what human trafficking was until after life. Like for bullies. They’ll call me whore.
experiencing it firsthand or once they were I’ve had that happen to me… so,
rescued and in specialized schooling systems. AWARENESS THAT PEOPLE ARE
Many of the youth suggested that service VICTIMS.”
providers bring resources to schools to help
youth learn and understand how to identify
human trafficking and be more aware of what services are available. Further, it was suggested by 63
youth survivors that schools host awareness events or offer programs on human trafficking to help
survivors cope with the difficulties of reintegration back into school and to ensure other students
fully grasp the fact that some youth in their schools are victims. These youth survivors will
frequently face opposition from those who do not understand their experience, but this is
exemplified in a school setting where bullying and lack of knowledge of human trafficking is
rampant among their peers.
Youth survivors also suggested that law enforcement should have more awareness of the needs of
sex trafficking survivors. For example, one youth referred to the fact that law enforcement officers
often arrest without regard for whether the youth was a victim. A few youth survivors shared that
they felt like criminals, and these actions by police seriously diminished any trust they had in law
enforcement helping them escape from their pimps. The youth suggested that law enforcement
receive awareness training to gain a better understanding of human trafficking and how to respond
in a trauma-informed manner.
Finally, youth survivors suggested that parents and foster parents receive training as well. As one
youth stated, “They can try to be a little more loving in that time period because they just get so
defensive, like it’s their fault.” With awareness training, parents and foster parents can learn how
to be more understanding of the survivor’s experience and to be more involved. A common theme
in the survivor recommendations was that survivors wanted parents and foster parents to become
more comfortable and open to talking about bad situations, involved in their daily lives, and
encouraging of healthy environments.

ACCESSIBILITY OF SERVICES
Advertising and making purposeful connections to services were two key recommendations. Half
of the youth survivors suggested that service providers should have a more pronounced social
media presence. Examples that were mentioned include Facebook, Snapchat, blogs, websites, TED
Talks, and apps for teens. Youth survivors felt that
service providers should promote available services
through billboards, posters, and advertisements. Two “I think services should be more
youth survivors recommended school trainings or FAMILY COORDINATED. If
notices/posters on school property to share about you’re working with one child, the
available resources. One youth survivor advocated for whole family is your case. The
public events to raise awareness, such as a walk for services aren’t working unless you
awareness where service providers could share about are working with the whole family
their services. and the environment they are in.”
The youth had different ideas as to what should be the
best way to ensure victims are connected with
services. All of the following were suggestions
directly from the youth survivors: texting, direct calling, direct messaging (over a specific
application, such as Instagram, Facebook, or Snapchat), email, blogs, hotlines, and people
physically sent into the community and schools. For each of these modes for initiating contact with
service providers, the youth survivors had different ideas as to which was the best option. This is
partially because each participant had a different experience as a victim, was in different place of
recovery, and had a variety of experiences and pathways to services. For example, one survivor
suggested texting as being the safest connection for her given her limited ability to speak by phone, 64
yet another youth shared that her pimp monitored her text messaging and a written record would
put her at risk. Therefore, the message was to utilize a variety of methods to connect victims and
at-risk youth with services so that a multitude of victims can be reached.
The youth survivors also suggested that law enforcement should be an available resource to them,
however, a few of the youth had prior experiences where they had not been treated respectfully by
police. As a result, the youth shared about their fear the police and lack of trust that law
enforcement will actually help and protect them. Survivors wanted law enforcement to be more
accessible and to be more discreet in determining if help is needed. One survivor shared about her
experience coming into contact with the police through a traffic stop and the officer raising
suspicion about her presence in the car with her pimp. Yet the officer did not initiate any means to
remove her from the situation and failed to ask the right questions where the youth could subtly
disclose that she was in need of help. All of the survivors desired the support of law enforcement.
Less than half of the survivors had participated or recognized programs such
as My Life My Choice or Not a Number. The few that had participated shared
that they had enjoyed My Life My Choice because they could “actually talk
about [their] experiences without feeling shut down” and “others in the group
had been in the life,” so it was easier to share and “be straight.”

COMPASSION AND HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS

The major themes woven throughout the interviews included a desire for love, understanding,
sensitivity, and comfort. Regardless of the type of service provider, youth felt that the best way to
make survivors more comfortable seeking services and sharing about their experiences would be
to offer verbal support through real conversations, provide more happiness in their lives, and to let
their story come out more naturally. Love146 was mentioned as a model program multiple times
and described as the entity that was the most comforting. It was the program and staff that did not
judge, asked for the youth’s opinion, and offered unconditional support.
One survivor suggested that service providers put less pressure on the survivors to talk right away
and especially in group settings. For this particular survivor, she shared about her discomfort
talking about her experience with others and how it severely disrupted her process of recovery. As
a result, she recommended more survivor led services and support groups that allowed survivors
to talk with one another. The benefits of being understood and listened to by someone who had
gone through the same experience was emphasized by several participants.
Across the board, survivors felt that their opinion was not accounted for and service providers,
particularly DCF, did not allow survivors to have a say in the services that were provided or
available to them. Generally, survivors suggested that referrals should be more inclusive of their
thoughts and concerns. In fact, one survivor felt she had absolutely no say in her services and
stated that she went along with the suggestions to avoid being “locked up” again. This issue was
more prominent for the younger survivors.
The survivors voiced many issues with law enforcement and their sheer lack of support and
comfort. Youth shared that the police, in particular, do not understand what a victim has been 65
through and they are unwilling to listen to the victim’s perspective. Law enforcement officers were
described as aggressive and often pointing the blame at the victim. One victim recommended
survivor-led training for police on trauma-informed responses and sexual exploitation to allow
police to make more meaningful connections with victims. Judges were also described as being
less supportive of victims and another entity that was unwilling to allow the victim to speak about
his/her experience. This resulted in a sense of distrust and was described as a lack of procedural
justice for survivors. As one youth survivor stated, “the only thing [judges] hear is what is on the
papers” because they do not listen to the survivor’s story. Therefore, they were also a
recommended party that should be required to take training on human trafficking and to learn more
about victim-centered approaches to justice.
“I just want more loving adults … more VERBAL SUPPORT and more COMFORT.”
Conclusions
In summary, the youth survivors shared an eagerness to be heard, positive experiences with human
trafficking-specific care, and mixed experiences with traditionally less victim-centered services.
Most of the youth had been in a variety of placements facilities, often moved from social worker
to social worker, and were filled with experiences of judgment and being treated as a delinquent.
However, they were resilient and able to articulate where the response in Connecticut supported
their identification and recovery and where improvements could be made.

DCF and detention center staff were the two main entities identifying victims and ensuring proper
referral to services. Although these were two entities described as being more authoritative, youth
seemed to understand the role of each and had both positive and negative reactions to the services
offered. The rapid response by Love146 was one of the most notable resources that all youth cited
in their story because of the impact the care backpack had on them while they were in crisis. There
were overwhelmingly positive comments about the long term care program as well and the
Love146 social workers. These staff were the most often referenced people that the survivors relied
on and felt most comfortable sharing their experiences with. Additionally, therapy and in-home
programs were two of the most common services provided to victims. Law enforcement, however,
was one of the least accessed services given the survivors’ extreme fear and distrust of police.
Participants advocated for raising awareness about human trafficking through schools and
trainings programs for law enforcement as well as parents and foster parents. They also made
recommendations for how service providers could reach victims through social media outlets,
shared their readiness to be made part of the decisions about their care, and supported programs
that allowed for real conversations and sharing among victims. Overall, these young survivors
wished that those around them—including service providers, parents, and peers—would exhibit
more understanding in their time of need and show compassion for them as people. Survivors
desired a balance of rules and comfort.
“Let victims know THERE IS A LIFE WHERE TRAFFICKING WON’T HAPPEN.”
66
Black
(12.5%)
Multiracial
(25.0%)
White
(62.5%)

Chapter 4
Summary and Next Steps

Conclusions
Below is a side-by-side comparison of key outcomes and areas of focus from the outset of the grant
and the current landscape within the state. Across all areas, there was significant improvement.
Connecticut is a leading state in the combat against trafficking and to see such significant
improvement speaks volumes about the dedication and infusion of knowledge that occurred across
the community. Many of the goals initially established as part of this grant were met and exceeded
midstream and as a result, HART established new focal areas and teams to continue to make
significant strides in the final two years and filling important gaps in their response.
Baseline Needs Assessment (2015) Outcome Evaluation (2019)

Identification of Victims
• Number of organizations serving more than 10 • Number of organizations serving more than 10
cases was low (20%) cases increased to nearly 45%
• 21% of organizations had formal policies for • 41% of organizations had formal policies for
identification identification
• Identification has double and remains at an
estimate 200 victims per year in referrals and a
more diverse population of victims is now
being served

Referrals
• Most common in-referrals were from child • Most common in-referrals were from child
welfare and law enforcement welfare and victim advocates
• Most common out-referrals were for child • Most common out-referrals were for victim
welfare and victim advocates services and mental health providers
Sources of Knowledge
• Most common source of knowledge was • Most common source of knowledge was direct
CTDCF trainings work with other agencies, this was a significant
increase compared to 2015
Training and Raising Awareness
• Most common training requested was • While similar trainings were requested in 2019,
investigative techniques, service delivery, and there was a significant decrease for wanting
identification trainings on basic knowledge, identification, and
• Across all fields, stakeholders had little investigative techniques
knowledge of child trafficking and were • Significant improvement in knowledge, beliefs,
uncomfortable identifying/serving victims and comfortable identifying and responding to
child trafficking across all fields
Services
• Many respondents (19%) reported their • Far fewer organizations (4%) reported no record 68
organization had no record system system
• Most commonly used services were medical and • Most commonly offered services were victim
mental health advocacy and mental health, with no significant
change, showing consistency in these types of
offerings for victims
• Significant increases in the number of
organizations offering family and guardian
support, job training, employment, information
and referral, and life skills
• Most commonly used services were still medical
and mental health
• Significant increases in usage of education, job
training, employment, information and referral,
victim compensation, and life skills
Collaboration
• MDT had highest intra-agency collaboration in • MDT had highest intra-agency collaboration in
sharing client information participating in joint conferences
• MDT had highest inter-agency collaboration in • MDT had highest inter-agency collaboration in
jointly providing programs participating in joint conferences
• The most significant increase(s) across
collaboration types was for the State HART
• Wilder revealed significant improvement in
collaboration, with the highest factor being a
Shared Vision
Chapter 4 |SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

Barriers to Identification
• Largest barrier was reluctance of victims to self- • Largest barrier continued to be a reluctance of
identify victims to self-identify
• Lack of training was significantly reduced as a
barrier
Barriers to Access
• Largest barrier was victims did not trust • Largest barrier continued to be victims’ distrust
authorities of authorities; however, according to the victim
interviews, there was improvement in how youth
viewed law enforcement and fewer victims were
engaging with police
• Significant increases in barriers of being
equipped to respond to needs of victims, having
formal procedures in place, having
knowledgeable staff, staff receiving adequate
training, and victims not trusting authorities
Lessons Learned
One of the major lessons learned is the need for additional web-based training to meet the training
demands across the state. Current legislation requires identified professionals to be trained
annually. CTDCF hopes to change this requirement to every 3 years for refresher trainings; the 69
legislation did not pass during the 2019 legislative session. As shown in the volume of trainings
conducted through this grant (700+) and the number of individuals trained being well beyond
10,000 individuals, with only 249 trainers in the state, there is a dire need for support.
Another lesson that continues today is, although additional foster parents continue to be trained to
become placement providers for trafficked children, CTDCF has learned an increase in volume
does not equate to an increase in open beds. There continues to be a barrier of homes being filled
when a request is made for a specialized home.
Implications
Overall, the results of the evaluation indicate that the HART project addressed most of the
proposed outcomes and greatly exceeded what was planned for this grant, with only a couple areas
that continue to be a focus of HART or rely on external forces for full achievement that are frankly
out of the control of the team. For example, the legislation remains misaligned with the TVPA, but
improvements have been made and HART has very actively educated legislators and continued to
find ways to reduce child trafficking without full legislative support. Also, the tracking of youth
outcomes has improved but has not been fully implemented. The increase in the number of
organizations with record keeping and increased collaboration across organizations indicate
improved infrastructure is needed to provide a fully coordinated response to trafficking that relies
on collection, sharing, and use of common data.
The decreases in need for trainings on knowledge and identification for HART members indicates
a better ability to identify trafficked victims and movement toward more advanced understanding

among those providers closest to child victims. Improved identification and training is also
evidenced in the decrease of training as a barrier to identification. However, recommendations for
even more collaboration with law enforcement and education indicate there is still room for
improvement of a cross-system response to trafficking. The increases in barriers to access indicate
that, once victims are identified, victims’ access to needed resources remains challenging given
limited resources, staff turnover, and factors related to low rates of self-identification and
continued care.
Recommendations
Below are a series of recommendations from this project to further improve the child welfare
response to trafficking and ensuring the safety, permanence, and well-being of children/youth in
the child welfare system.
Develop Child Trafficking Criteria for Providing Credentialing
Developing a credentialing process for service providers who want to serve child trafficking
victims is an important element of ensuring a sustainable pool of trained individuals prepared to
meet the needs of this population. Due to their expertise in developing curriculum and training
stakeholders, CTDCF was perfectly situated to develop the process and garner the appropriate
endorsements. During the grant, CTDCF explored an endorsement system and met with key
national stakeholders to develop criteria for credentialing but determined additional funding would
be needed to achieve their goal. The director of the HART program, Tammy Sneed, shared the
need of credentialing process across the country with federal partners in hopes to garner support
for this effort beyond the period of this grant. 70
Ensure the Cross-System Collaboration Includes Child Welfare Agencies
Having the Department of Children and Families in a leadership role for HART was crucial to the
success achieved. CTDCF was committed to the training program and meeting the demands of the
state as well as driving policy and reform. Some of the strongest partnerships and reported
successes came from close collaborations among agencies and having HART Liaisons situated
within their own region to tailor the response on the front lines. Along the five years collaboration
remained strong and the State HART continued to be vital to further building capacity and weaving
together each region’s response. Stakeholders reported that silos and overlapping initiatives
created more challenges than successes.
Provide Opportunities to Develop or Customize Web-based Training Modules
One of the major lessons learned was the need for additional web-based training to meet the
training demands across the state. As legislation improves and states continue to mandate training
for a variety of professions, agencies are struggling to train and certify enough individuals and
finding the resources to keep up. States, and even programs within this cluster of grantees, seem
to be developing training programs independently, and nationwide resources that can be tailored
to the needs and experiences within the state are recommended.
Actively Engage the Faith-Based Community
The faith-based community, specifically The Underground, played a critical role in providing
resources to young survivors and spearheading awareness, youth programming, fundraising, and
bringing new partners to the table. Community awareness is a powerful initiative within faith-

based communities, and The Underground, for example, presented in churches, learning
centers/universities/town schools, and conferences to help educate at all levels. The awareness
events and campaigns engaged experts and typically drew crowds of 100-200 attendees with
various backgrounds and interests.
Support Legislative Reform to Ensure States Better Align with the TVPA
Although many legislators understand the realities of and impact of child trafficking and desire to
eradicate such, not all share the same beliefs. More support is needed to ensure states are more
aligned with the TVPA and provided with the necessary resources to arrest the perpetrators.
Without alignment prosecution of cases and services for victims will continue to be impacted.
Connecticut continues to be faced with the challenge of providing victim services for child
trafficking victims. The youth’s attorneys are on occasion blocking services due to the risk of
youth sharing incriminating information that may be subpoenaed and used against them by law
enforcement and the courts.
Provide Funding for Specialized Housing, Long-term Care, and Trafficking-specific
Programs
CTDCF has learned that an increase in volume of certified/specialized foster homes does not
equate to an increase in open beds. There continues to be a barrier of homes being filled when a
request is made for a specialized home. More generally, there continues to be a shortage of
specialized services altogether and incredibly limited long-term care options. Stakeholders
continue to look for funding options to allow for more youth to be served and finding ways to meet
the needs of survivors. Federal funding has requirements that sometimes prevents states from
applying for grants, matching requirements and broad target populations are the two most 71
challenging. As youth age out of the system, the resources available to them are even more
diminished. Surprisingly there is even resistance to this type of legislation by other advocates in
the field.
Offer Additional Funding for Program Evaluation and Enhancing Data Systems
Enabling programs to have an evaluation partner has been an invaluable resource for sharing back
findings and helping to provide evidence of system improvements. Building in funding for more
rigorous program evaluation is needed to establish best practices, assist agencies with system
enhancements, and facilitate more in-depth data tracking/analysis. Having researchers as more
active members and working collaboratively with partners would ensure that data driven decisions
are made and the response model is better informed by results.

Sustainability
The following sustainability plan was developed during the grantee meeting to represent the 5-
year plan for HART.
1. WHAT should be sustained? HART Response and Plan Who will perform each task?
What is your vision for 5 years When?
from now?
1.1 Keep key parts of the project 1.1 The majority of HART has been 1.1 The HART Director will continue to
going (as is or a modified version), organized and operationalized lead the overall organization of HART.
without funding and will continue If funds are obtained for the HART
For example, services, staff many years out. Ideally we would Coordinator the current HART
salaries, training, infrastructure, like to find funding to keep the HART operation will remain unchanged. The
data collection, evaluation, Coordinator position on a long-term CTKIND project is funded with an
continuous quality improvement basis, at least 5-years out. There is a entire team developing the
(CQI), and fidelity monitoring. plan to transition all data into our infrastructure and operational system;
future system, CTKIND. CTKIND this project is not dependent on the
will streamline data to eliminate the current grant and will continue as long
need to reenter data into multiple as there is administrative support. The
systems. It is expected that CTKIND service providers are funded through
will be operational over the next 2 to state and other funding sources also
4 years. CT uses Results Based not contingent on the current grant;
Accountability (RBA), when data is RBA will continue for these providers.
efficiently being entered RBA
outcomes will be developed and
monitored on a quarterly basis.
Service providers servicing youth
victims currently use RBA and 72
various outcomes are currently
monitored on a quarterly basis.
1.2. Integrate key project activities 1.2 We are currently working on a 1.2 The HART Director and HART
into your ongoing practices, significant Policy and Practice Intern presented the current
institutionalizing necessary Guide revision that will include the recommendations at the Senior
program strategies and activities changes that have occurred since Administrative Meeting to officially
into organizational policy and last revision including those lessons kick-off the formal approval process.
infrastructure. learned through the support of the
current grant. The preliminary work
on the Policy and Practice Guide has
been completed and the formal steps
began in July 2018.
1.3. Embed key elements of the 1.3 The key elements of HART 1.3 HART Meetings will continue to
project in the broader system. include various agencies, public and occur on a quarterly basis with an
private, throughout the state. HART annual retreat to focus efforts.
will continue with the expectation
that our partners continue to play a
key role in our efforts.
1.4. Expand the project and take it 1.4 example – HART is a statewide 1.4 The HART Director and HART
to scale, e.g., to serve more people, initiative with partnerships at Liaisons will continue to strengthen
replicate in other communities, and various stages of development. partnerships on a state and local level
to expand statewide or nationally. as part of our everyday efforts.

1. WHAT should be sustained? HART Response and Plan Who will perform each task?
What is your vision for 5 years When?
from now?
1.5. Leave a legacy of knowledge, 1.5 The HART efforts are well 1.5 The new Policy and Practice Guide
e.g., replication manual that can be documented and disseminated widely has been finalized. HART will continue
used by others who wish to through trainings, websites, etc. The to be a member of the Trafficking in
replicate your project or implement DCF Policy and Practice Guide will Persons (TIP) council with continued
something similar. ensure consistent practice across the focus on strengthening CT laws.
state. CT laws reflect much of
HARTs efforts, ensuring statewide
practice continues in those areas
solidified in legislation. CT has
consulted with well over 50% of the
US and will continue to share
lessons learned and materials
developed. Developing a strong
communication plan that
incorporates feedback from the key
stakeholders as part of the process
will begin during the next HART
Retreat.
2. WHY sustain the project? Why HART Response and Plan Who will perform each task?
do you believe part or all of your When?
project should be sustained?
2.1. What are early indicators that 2.1 The role of the HART Coordinator 2.1 The CQI of the training efforts via
program elements should or should has dramatically increased our the Surveys ceased when the grant 73
not be sustained? capacity to provide statewide ended. CT will continue to monitor
communication, increase trainings training evaluations, RBA report
and inform the communities. The cards, etc. Various stakeholder
outcomes from the training surveys surveys are being developed and will
and evaluations demonstrate the be disseminated on a regular basis,
various trainings are making a e.g. Love 146, CT Children’s Alliance,
difference across the state. The RBA etc.
report cards are demonstrating the
service providers are having an
impact on our youth.
2.2. When will you know for sure? 2.2 We will not know about the HART 2.2 This data was analyzed and shared
How will you know? Coordinator at least until the end of with HART through the end of the
the next Legislative Session. The data grant.
is indicating the training and service
provisions in place should continue.

2. WHY sustain the project? Why HART Response and Plan Who will perform each task?
do you believe part or all of your When?
project should be sustained?
2.3. How will you assess and 2.3 The HART grant has been 2.3 We clearly know we need
gather evidence to identify the integrated with the HART that has position(s) to sustain and increase our
particular strategies and key been in operation for almost 10-years. efforts with HART. We need to
components that should or should The grant allowed for a HART maintain a HART Coordinator and
not be sustained? Coordinator so we were able to need dedicated HART Liaison
enhance communication, increase positions in each of the DCF regions
training capacity, expand public and/or area offices, data validates the
awareness, etc. It is expected that need.
HART will continue to remain viable
but efforts would decrease if funds are
not accessed to maintain the
Coordinator. The development of a
communication plan will incorporate
stakeholders in the process and
include key data points from their
perspective.
2.4. Are there other sources of 2.4 CTDCF utilizes RBA for all of our 2.4 ICF shared the overall findings at
evidence for sustainment, e.g., programs and services. Data is the end of this grant award and these
cross-cluster findings or findings available through multiple sources will inform HART on areas of success
from other similar initiatives? that can be accessed to look at areas and areas we may want to focus
What are they and how will you of success or concern. The DCF moving forward.
gain access to and use this Regions also compile significant
evidence to build your case and amounts of data to inform the system
inform your sustainment plan? and with a new Universal Referral
process we will be able to assess what 74
services are well sought after and
what services do not appear to reflect
the needs of CT. We will consider the
development of vignettes as people
successfully complete the service –
these vignettes should include all
aspects – youth, families, providers,
community. Love146 feedback from
the youth is often shared and is a
powerful way of demonstrating the
program is highly regarded.

3. HOW do you plan to sustain your Your best response to this Next steps to draft, update, and
project? question at this point implement the plan: Who will
perform each task? When?
3.1. What changes will be required to 3.1 We will need to Identify the long- 3.1 Funding requests for positions have
sustain program benefits? What term resources dedicated to this work been presented several times during the
systems, legislation, policy, (i.e. funding, positions, services). life of this grant. CT is in a budget
procedures, training, and funding Legislation aligning CT laws to the crisis and currently resources are being
sources would need to change? When
are the barriers to these changes
TVPA is vital to ensuring increased downsized or eliminated. HART will
happening? What are the prosecutions in CT while ensuring continue to advocate at the state level
opportunities, e.g., how do your these youth are treated as victims. but will also look for additional grants
sustainment goals fit with other Current barrier to legislation in CT is moving forward. Note: Grants with
current systems change initiatives? some legislators do not view these matching requirements cannot be
youth as victims; during the last sought by CT.
legislative session an important piece
of legislation died.
3.2. How much will it cost to sustain 3.2 The HART Coordinator position 3.2 The HART Director will continue to
key program elements? What are the is approximately $100,000 including request funding on the state level and
costs of not doing so? If you don’t fringe. Foundation funding and will assess other funding sources.
know, how can you find out? What are grants are being explored by many
potential funding sources? How will
you secure funding and other
HART members. Identify community
resources that will be needed to sustain resources dedicated to this work i.e.
program benefits? collaboration with towns, schools,
churches, etc. example: The
Underground
4. WHO can help? Can you succeed Your best response to this Next steps to draft, update, and
by your efforts alone or will you need question at this point implement the plan: Who will 75
help? perform each task? When?
4.1. Who are the key individuals and 4.1 Continued collaboration with the 4.1 These partners are already on
organizations whose support will be Task Force (USAO, SA, FBI, HIS, HART and at the table working on the
required? State LE, etc.), various state agencies, many issues related to HART’s efforts.
private providers, faith-based Interest may change over time as
community, etc. Develop elevator administrations change but the current
speeches with focus on need and culture in CT is to support HART. The
demand. Highlight positive impact of sustainability efforts will be reviewed at
their mission, vision and goals to the the next annual HART retreat this fall.
youth and families. Demonstrate
impact and success through the types
of services they provide and support
for continuation.
4.2. How and when should you 4.2 Develop elevator speeches with 4.2 During the Fall 2018 HART Retreat
engage partners to develop and focus on need and demand. Highlight the sustainability plan was a priority
implement your sustainability plan? positive impact of their mission, discussion item. A vision and mission
vision and goals to the youth and statement for HART was developed to
families. Demonstrate impact and unite the stakeholders moving forward.
success through the types of services The HART Director and Coordinator
they provide. Engagement should led the discussion and planning for next
occur with individual entities on a steps for the sustainability plan.
continuous basis. The overall HART
will be engaged at quarterly HART
meetings and through various
correspondence through our list serve
and website.

4. WHO can help? Can you succeed Your best response to this Next steps to draft, update, and
by your efforts alone or will you need question at this point implement the plan: Who will
help? perform each task? When?
4.3. What support is needed from each 4.3 All aspects of need – fundraising, 4.3 During the last HART Retreat the
of them? service delivery, positive social prior year’s efforts were reviewed and
activities for youth, community new priorities for the next year were
outreach and involvement, youth developed as well as a long-term plan
awareness, training, etc. to sustain efforts to date after the grant.
4.4. What evidence would convince 4.4 The overall data of identified 4.4 The HART Coordinator has
them that they should provide this victims and youth at risk, the training continued to keep the CT HART
support? results to date, outcomes from service updated sharing the related data.
providers demonstrate the HART
efforts need to continue to move
forward.
4.5. How will you maintain the 4.5 HART will continue after the 4.5 The HART is not contingent on the
involvement of key project partners on grant sunsets including the quarterly current grant; the existing grant has
an ongoing basis in the planning and meetings, annual retreats, training, allowed HART to enhance and increase
operation of your program as well as data sharing, grant writing, etc. its efforts to a level that would not have
during and after the grant project?
occurred without the funding. Systems
have been put in place to sustain many
of the efforts including several Training
of Trainers that have resulted in over
130 certified trainers in CT.
5. TRANSITION—If there are parts of Your best response to this Next steps to draft, update, and
your project that will NOT be question at this point implement the plan: Who will
sustained, how will you manage the perform each task? When? 76
transition?
5.1. Which parts will NOT be 5.1 The outside evaluator will not be 5.1 These grant funded projects sunset
sustained? Why? funded moving forward. There are naturally during the final year of the
multiple mechanisms to analyze data grant.
in Connecticut and we will continue
to do so. We are hopeful future
grants will provide funding for
outside evaluators to look at areas
such as specialized services, etc.
The contract for training from the
American Bar Association will not be
funded moving forward. As
additional needs arise in this area
funding sources will be sought. The
Polaris contract will not be funded
moving forward, there are a variety
of ways to share information via
other sources. The KJMB contract is
part of a much larger project in CT,
the PIE system created for HART is
complete and as CTKIND rolls out
the PIE data will be incorporated.
5.2. Who needs to know? How will 5.2 HART Project Director 5.2 Updates will be provided at the
you tell them? When? HART Quarterly Meetings and the Fall
2018 retreat.

5. TRANSITION—If there are parts of Your best response to this Next steps to draft, update, and
your project that will NOT be question at this point implement the plan: Who will
sustained, how will you manage the perform each task? When?
transition?
5.3. How will you manage this 5.3 These projects have a contract 5.3 The HART Director will sunset
transition to minimize negative impacts that expires at the end of the grant these grants and provide evaluations as
on service recipients, your organization with determined deliverables that to our accomplishments.
and staff, and your partners? should be met by the last day of the
grant. The HART Director will be in
communication with the various
providers.
6. DISSEMINATION and Your best response to this Next steps to draft, update, and
COMMUNICATION—How can question at this point implement the plan: Who will
effective dissemination help you achieve perform each task? When?
your sustainment goals?
6.1. For each sustainment goal, identify 6.1 The HART will provide 6.1 HART’s meeting and
how dissemination can help achieve this continuous communication as the communication structures will be used
goal. Whom should you target? When? various grant funded projects come to ensure all are current in areas of
What are the key messages? How do you to a close. Areas that we wish to completion and areas we will continue
communicate them most effectively?
Who can you partner with?
sustain such as the HART to sustain.
Coordinator has already been in
discussion, identified as a funding
need for CTDCF, etc.
6.2. Complete Effective Dissemination 6.2 HART Director and Coordinator 6.2 Final plan was completed after the
Worksheet for Children’s Bureau will lead this process with the 2018 HART FALL Retreat.
Discretionary Grant Planning various stakeholders.
77
Dissemination
The following dissemination activities were a result of this grant:
 Several presentations resulted from this project as listed in Appendix A.
 Two national webinars showcasing the HART model, key partnerships, and research
findings from the grant.
 ICF developed the Research Brief on the Youth Perspective.
 ICF conducted presentation to trainers and academic audiences to share findings.

Appendix A. Cluster Outputs

Common Cluster Outputs
3.1. Cross-system partnerships are established to develop coordinated

responses & practices
On average, how many 40
organizations participated in
your cross-system
partnership?
How many meetings of your 19+ HART meetings, not including Leadership
cross-system partnership were meetings, team meetings, or MDTs and Regional
held during the project period? HART case conferences/convening’s.
How often did your cross- Quarterly

system partnership meet
(e.g., monthly, quarterly)?
A
Did your cross-system Each region has a HART Liaison and a regional
partnership have representative attends the State (main) HART. The
specialized sub-team? If subcommittees of the state HART change according
so, please describe. to the needs in the state. Previous and current sub
committees include: Protocols and Procedures, Legal
Issues, Funding and Survivor-Informed Care.
Did you host a formal An annual retreat is held for members of the State
convening of stakeholders HART for strategic planning purposes. CTDCF also
(e.g., Annual Summit)? If co-hosts an annual conference for stakeholders
so, please describe. focused on responses to minor victims of human
trafficking.
3.3. Number of trainings conducted & number of staff trained

How many trafficking ~690
trainings were conducted
as part of this project?
How many people were ~15,000+
trained during the project
period?
Final Report | APPENDICES

Describe the audience for Training audiences are very diverse and include but
the trainings (e.g., role, are not limited to child welfare staff, probation staff,
profession, years of court personnel, law enforcement at all levels,
experience, required or Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents,
optional training). legal representation at all levels, service providers,
schools (K-12) and universities, medical providers and
multiple community organizations including the faith-
based community. CTDCF provides mandatory
trainings for EMTs, law enforcement, and lodging
industry professionals.
3.4. Number of trauma-focused services & evidence-based practices (EBPs)

implemented
How many trauma-focused Not measured
services and/or EBPs were
delivered during the project
period?
Please describe the Not measured
trauma-focused services
and/or EBPs delivered as
part of the project.
B
Short-Term Outcomes
4.1. Improved infrastructure to provide a coordinated response to child

trafficking
Systems to record and CTDCF implemented the PIE System to better collect
monitor trafficking case information from across the state.
established or enhanced
MOUs and data-sharing As part of the expansion of HART and MDT roles,
agreements across project MOUs were created across agencies.
partners
Communication processes Protocols for community responses to child trafficking
and information sharing were developed by CTDCF/HART. Stakeholders
across systems, and improved communication through participation in
partners MDTs and Regional HARTs. CTDCF created PIE
system to better share data.
CQI processes including CTDCF created the infrastructure needed for a CQI
functions for reporting plan and will implement once the PIE system is
information on risk, referral, adapted by all Regional HARTs.
enrollment, and services to
stakeholders and providers

Training and TA received HART invited outside sources to train and present at
from outside sources their annual conference. Additionally, CTDCF
partnered with several service providers to deliver
training curriculums. National trainers were brought
into CT including survivor speakers, Polaris and the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC).
Training of trainers Trainer the trainers were an essential piece of
conducted to expand local expanding capacity to address child trafficking and
capacity CTDCF conducted an estimated 28 trainings and
more than 240 certified trainers across the state.
Case-level multidisciplinary In addition to the 6 Regional HARTs, there are 17

teams developed, MDTs that meet across the state to address sexual
supported, and facilitated assault of minor cases.
How many pre and post 13,522 total surveys; 6,583 pre and 6,128 post, 811
Trafficking Awareness incomplete
Surveys (TAS) were
administered during the
project period?
4.2. Increased state-level & local awareness of trafficked youth C
What was the average Not tracked.

response rate for pre and
post TAS during the project
period?
What were the mean pre Reported above.
and post-scores on the
TAS for the:
Knowledge Scale
Beliefs Scale
Self-Efficacy Scale
Were the differences
between trainees’ pre and
post scores on these
scales statistically
significant?
What were the Reported above.
demographic
characteristics of TAS
respondents?

Does the jurisdiction (e.g., In the course of this grant, HART created a state-
state or county) where your wide online system to better track child trafficking
project operates have an cases.
established trafficking
identification variable in an
electronic information
system? If yes, please
describe.
4.5. Improved ability to quickly identify trafficked victims
Describe how project Project partners share specific case information in
partners collect, share, and Regional HART and MDT meetings. HART Liaisons
use data. are a common conduit of information between DCF
and the regional teams. CCA also collects information
from the CACs. Additionally, critical incident reports
are sent to agencies engaged in responding to child
trafficking. CTDCF also collects data through the PIE
system and distributes information to stakeholders
through reports and newsletters.
4.8. Improved collection, sharing, & use of data across system partners
Describe data collection Project partners share specific case information in D

and sharing processes. Regional HART and MDT meetings (refer to updated
legislation above). Additionally, critical incident
reports are sent to agencies engaged in responding
to child trafficking. CTDCF also collects data through
the PIE system and distributes information to
stakeholders through reports and newsletters.
Love146 tracks crisis response and long-term
outcomes and shares referral data with CTDCF.
Intermediate Outcomes
5.1. Decreased entry into trafficking among at-risk youth*
Describe the project’s efforts The HART project sought to decrease at-risk youth’s
to reduce entry into entry into trafficking through partnering with service
trafficking among at-risk providers, such as Love146, to deliver youth
youth and any associated prevention curriculums and through increasing public
data. awareness of risk factors and warning signs through

the development and delivery of several introductory

curriculums. The training numbers are present in the
report to demonstrate preventative measures across
the state.
5.2. Improved identification of trafficked youth
How many youth were As of March 2019, 851 children were referred to
identified as at-risk or victims CTDCF as potential victims of Child Trafficking. The
of trafficking during each average number of youth referred per year is 200. Of
year of the project period? those children, the majority were identified as Latina
What were the demographics females. This is a significant increase in
of these youth? identifications and diversification of those that have
been identified with boys and LGBTQI youth among
more recent annual totals.
5.3. Improved cross-system response to child trafficking
Wilder Survey Results The overall summary score: 3.97, 3.93, and 4.06,
respectively by wave.
The average score for each factor: refer to E

Appendix B.
5.10. Increased resources for the scientific study of child trafficking
Describe all professional CTDCF participated in a total of 55+ presentations

presentations given and all during the grant including: Human Trafficking and
articles and (non-required) Gangs, Human Trafficking Symposium, Working
reports published from this with LGBTQI Trafficked Youth, Screening for Child
project. Sex Trafficking with a Validated Tool, Combating
Human Trafficking, Response to Recovery: A Child
Abuse Conference, CT Legal Conference, Labor
Trafficking Training, Child Sex Trafficking and
Gangs, Human Trafficking and Individuals with
Disabilities, Designing a Collaborative Framework
from a State and National Perspective for
Responding to Child Trafficking Cases, Promoting
Trauma-Informed Policies and Practices to Address
Child Sex Trafficking, Tragedies of Human
Trafficking in Connecticut, Commercial Sexual

Exploitation of Children for Law Enforcement, Child

Trafficking in Schools across America, Serving the
Needs of New Arrival Children, Human Trafficking:
Inside the Survivor’s Mind, Responding to Child
Victims of Trafficking, Child Sex Trafficking and
Gangs, Response to Recovery a Child Abuse
Conference, Central MDT Conference with Survivor
Speaker, the Role of Men in Ending Child Sex
Trafficking, Human Trafficking Symposium, Trauma
Informed Approach for Survivors of Human
Trafficking, Best Practices in Communication with
Survivors of Sex Trafficking, Case Management
Support for Trafficking Survivors, Response to
Recovery: A Child Abuse Conference,
Multidisciplinary Approach to Internet Crimes
Against Children Cases, Trauma: A Reoccurring
Theme in Girl’s Lives, Child Welfare Virtual Expo:
Building Capacity to Address Sex Trafficking and
Normalcy, How the National Human Trafficking
Resource Center Supports the Anti-Trafficking
Community, The Road Less Traveled: Trafficked
Persons in the Shadows, Child Welfare Law
Symposium, Exposing Sex Trafficking on Cantinas
and Bars in the US, National Conference on Child F
Abuse and Neglect, Boys and Trafficking:
Identifying and Serving Silent Survivors, Mental
Health Interventions for CSEC Youth, Beyond
Finding Words, Grace Farms Justice Initiative
Launch: Eradicating Child Exploitation, Child
Trafficking 101, DMST Forensic Interviewing
Training by Rita Farrell, Testifying as an Expert in
CSEC Cases, Investigating and Prosecuting Human
Trafficking Cases, Balancing Collaboration,
Confidentiality, and Privileges in Human Trafficking
Cases, Collaborating with Culturally Specific
Organizations to End Human Trafficking, Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, How Pimps Select
their Victims, Working Together Part I and Part II,
MEC Training and Technical Assistance Program:
Prosecuting Sex Trafficking Cases, Understanding
the Complex Needs of Commercially Sexually
Exploited Children, Relationships Matter to Us
Conference 2015, Serving Trafficking Victims in
Immigrant Communities, Culturally Appropriate
Human Trafficking Services, and Surviving the
Streets of New York: Experiences of LGBTW Youth

Engaged in Survival Sex. Additionally, HART issues

a newsletter twice a year and co-sponsors an
annual conference. The evaluation team also
presented findings twice a year over the duration of
the award: once to a practitioner audience and the
other at an academic conference. The youth
perspective was also published as a Research
Brief.
Long-Term Outcomes Please Describe Evidence of the

Following Outcomes
6.1. Decreased incidence of child Not measured
trafficking
6.2. Increased successful exits Not measured; consult the Love146 data
from trafficking for child welfare above for details on any longer term
involved youth outcomes at this juncture
6.3. Improved cognitive Not measured
functioning among trafficked
youth G
6.4. Improved physical health & Not measured
development among trafficked
youth
6.5. Improved Not measured
emotional/behavioral functioning
among trafficked youth
6.6. Improved social functioning Not measured
among trafficked youth

Appendix B. Detailed Wilder Collaboration

Factors Inventory Results
CTDCF, in coordination with ICF, administered the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (Wilder
Survey 5) in January 2016 in order to measure change in collaboration in CT and offer a means for
comparison throughout the life of the project. The Wilder Survey was administered to members of the State
HART. Administered occurred during year one of the project (January 2016) and was repeated in February
2018 and September 2019. About half of the members are part of the child welfare system. The remaining
members are Law Enforcement, Service Providers, Attorneys, or Juvenile Justice System personnel.
Members surveyed represented all levels of experience in their career, from less than 1 year to more than
30 years of experience. The vast majority of members are female and Caucasian.
Exhibit B-1: Respondent Demographics
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

(1/2016) (2/2018) (9/2019)
Total Respondents 38 38 25
Types of Group HART membership includes: child welfare administrators/frontline staff, child
Members protective services/investigators, juvenile justice and probation, law enforcement H
(state, local, federal), service providers, mental health, court representatives
(attorneys, CASA), survivors, and victim advocates
Demographics 90% Female 84% Female 83% Female
79% Caucasian 81% Caucasian 63% Caucasian
42% Child Welfare 49% Child Welfare 58% Child Welfare
14% Law Enforcement 19% Service Provider 13% Mental Health Prov.
14% Service Provider 14% State-level Admin. 8% State-level Admin.
11% State-level Admin. 14% Local-level Admin.
14% Police Officer
Average Years of
16 14 16
Experience
Strongest Factors Self-Interest in Self-Interest in Shared Vision
Collaboration Collaboration Skilled Leadership
Unique Purpose Skilled Leadership Self-Interest in
Skilled Leadership Unique Purpose Collaboration
Overall Summary
3.97 3.93 4.06*
Score
Note: Statistically significant change/increased collaboration between Wave 1 and Wave 3, p<.05.
5
Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. (2001). Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory. St. Paul, MN: Wilder
Research.

Exhibit B-2: Factor Scores by Wave
Factor Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Factor 1: History of collaboration 3.93 3.85 3.88

Factor 2: Collaborative group seen as a legitimate 3.74 3.67 3.90
leader in the community
Factor 3: Favorable political and social climate 4.32 4.08 4.12
Factor 4: Mutual respect, understanding, and trust 3.97 3.84 4.26
Factor 5: Appropriate cross-section of members 3.93 3.82 4.00
Factor 6: Members see collaboration as in their self- 4.68 4.55 4.48
interest
Factor 7: Ability to compromise 3.87 3.74 3.80
Factor 8: Members share a stake in both process and 4.08 4.13 4.27
outcomes
Factor 9: Multiple layers of participation 3.38 3.32 3.58
Factor 10: Flexibility 3.75 3.72 4.06
Factor 11: Development of clear roles and policy 3.57 3.89 3.94
guidelines
I
Factor 12: Adaptability 3.83 3.87 3.96
Factor 13: Appropriate pace of development 3.55 3.56 3.78
Factor 14: Open and frequent communication 4.16 4.09 4.25

Factor 15: Established informal relationships and 4.25 4.24 4.24
communication links
Factor 16: Concrete, attainable goals and objectives 4.00 4.12 4.28
Factor 17: Shared vision 4.20 4.24 4.54
Factor 18: Unique purpose 4.46 4.38 4.46
Factor 19: Sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time 3.28 3.04 2.92
Factor 20: Skilled leadership 4.39 4.39 4.52

Appendix C. Trafficking Awareness Surveys

SURVEY CONSTRUCTS
 Level of Knowledge (e.g., risk factors, definitions and terminology) – 12 items rated on a
scale of 1 to 5; Maximum potential score = 60
 Beliefs (e.g., victim culpability) – 4 items rated on a scale of 1 to 10; Maximum potential
score = 40
 Level of Comfort (e.g., self-efficacy, confidence in practice) – 6 items rated on a scale of
1 to 10; Maximum potential score = 60

References
Banks, D., & Kyckelhahn, T. (2011). Characteristics of suspected human trafficking incidents,

2008-2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Belser, P. (2005). Forced labour and human trafficking: Estimating the profits. Available at
SSRN 1838403.
Bounds, D., Julion, W. A., & Delaney, K. R. (2015). Commercial sexual exploitation of children
and state child welfare systems. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 16(1-2), 17-26.
Clawson, H., & Goldbatt, G. (2007). Finding a path to recovery: Residential facilities for minor
victims of domestic sex trafficking. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human
Resources.
Clawson, H. J., Dutch, N., Solomon, A., & Grace, L. G. (2009). Human trafficking into and
within the United States: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: US Department of Human
and Health Services.
Connecticut State Department of Children and Families. HART (Human Anti-trafficking
Response Team). Retrieved from https://portal.ct.gov/DCF/HART/Home#ABOUTHART.
Hemmings, S., Jakobowitz, S., Abas, M., Bick, D., Howard, L. M., Stanley, N., ... & Oram, S.
(2016). Responding to the health needs of survivors of human trafficking: a systematic
review. BMC health services research, 16(1), 320.
Institute of Medicine (2014). Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking
of Minors in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. (2001). Wilder Collaboration Factors
Inventory. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research.
Muraya, D. N., & Fry, D. (2016). Aftercare services for child victims of sex trafficking: A
systematic review of policy and practice. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(2), 204-220. U.S.
Census Bureau
Office on Trafficking in Persons. What is Human Trafficking? Retrieved
from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/otip/about/what-is-human-trafficking.
Shared Hope International. “Eliminating the Third Party Control Barrier to Identifying Juvenile
Sex Trafficking Victims,” JuST Response Policy Paper (2015), http://sharedhope.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/Policy-Paper_Eliminating-Third-Party-Control_Final1.pdf
Werkmeister Rozas, L., Ostrander, J., & Feely, M. (2018). Inequalities in US Child Protection:
The Case of Sex Trafficked Youth. Social Sciences, 7(8), 135.
icf.com
Report produced by ICF Incorporated, LLC. ICF (NASDAQ:ICFI) is a global consulting services company with over 5,000 specialized experts,
but we are not your typical consultants. At ICF, business analysts and policy specialists work together with digital strategists, data scientists
and creatives. We combine unmatched industry expertise with cutting-edge engagement capabilities to help organizations solve their most
complex challenges. Since 1969, public and private sector clients have worked with ICF to navigate change and shape the future.
Learn more at icf.com.
Suggested citation:
Lowry, S., Sneed, T., Remrey, L., Marzella, C., and Park, T. (2019). Human Anti-trafficking Response Team in Connecticut: Final Report.
Fairfax, VA: Author.

90CA1828!01!00 DCF HART Final Report January 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

90CA1828!01!00 DCF HART Final Report January 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

90CA1828!01!00 DCF HART Final Report January 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Connecticut Department of Children and Families

Human Anti-trafficking Response

State of Connecticut ICF Incorporated, LLC

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................i

Human Trafficking in Connecticut................................................................................1

Overview of HART Model..........................................................................................................9

HART Goals and Objectives .........................................................................................9

Program Evaluation ................................................................................................................29

Overview of Evaluation Design ..................................................................................29

Summary and Next Steps .......................................................................................................67

Appendix A. Cluster Outputs .................................................................................................. A

Appendix B. Detailed Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory Results ............................... H

Appendix C. Trafficking Awareness Surveys..........................................................................J

CONNECTICUT’S HUMAN ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSE TEAM (HART) | Final Report

CONNECTICUT’S HUMAN ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSE TEAM (HART) | Final Report

Final Report | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Let victims know THERE IS A LIFE WHERE TRAFFICKING WON’T HAPPEN.”

Final Report | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Human Trafficking in Connecticut

CONNECTICUT’S HUMAN ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSE TEAM (HART) | Final Report

Chapter 3 | PROGRAM EVALUATION

Overall Goals of HART

Chapter 3 | PROGRAM EVALUATION

Overview of HART Structure and Cross-system Partnerships

What other agencies or organizations should be involved in the State HART or

Overview of HART Model

Goal 1: Evaluate CTDCF’s current and enhanced Human Trafficking

CONNECTICUT’S HUMAN ANTI-TRAFFICKING RESPONSE TEAM (HART) | Final Report

Goal 2: Develop inter- and intra-agency collaborations and infrastructures to

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

What are Multi-disciplinary Teams (MDTs)?

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Train Community Stakeholders

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Introduction to Child Trafficking in Connecticut

Introduction to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Emergency Medical Services:

Child Trafficking Training for Medical Providers/ Emergency Medicine

Introduction to Human Trafficking in Connecticut for Hotel/ Motel/ Lodging

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Sex Trafficking of Boys & Male Bodied Youth

To schedule a training contact: [email protected]

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Develop and Implement Child Advocacy Center (CAC) and Multi-

According to the Connecticut Children’s Alliance:

CCA 2018, Outcome Measurement System (OMS) Data.

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Develop Child Trafficking Criteria for Providing Credentialing

Domestic Child Sex Trafficking Webinar Series 17

Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/ymic6lyEiqE

Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/C5P4Gj8xVAw

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/8tKWu1rgDFc

Recording can be found here: https://youtu.be/5IUo49tun1o.

Advocate in the Connecticut State Legislature

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

The Underground has funded 100 Emergency

Chapter 2 | OVERVIEW OF HART MODEL

p<.01, p<.05, p<.10

p<.01, p<.05, p<.10

p<.01, p<.05, p<.10