Safe Harbor First year evaluation report S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5 Prepared by: Julie Atella, Laura Schauben, Emma Connell Prepared for: 451 Lexington Parkway North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 651-280-2700 www.wilderresearch.org Wilder Research Information. Insight. Impact. Contents Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 The No Wrong Door framework..................................................................................... 1 The Safe Harbor law ....................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 3 Logic model .................................................................................................................... 4 Grantees .......................................................................................................................... 6 Safe Harbor Regional Navigator Year One ........................................................................ 8 Clients of Regional Navigators: Eligibility and information at intake ........................... 8 Direct services provided by Regional Navigators ........................................................ 12 Key findings ...................................................................................................................... 14 Key components of the Safe Harbor/No Wrong Door model....................................... 14 Challenges related to the implementation ..................................................................... 16 Observed impacts .......................................................................................................... 19 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 23 Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 26 1. Example of referral processes in some regions (not applicable to all regions) .... 27 2. Service flowchart upon referral to Regional Navigator ........................................ 28 3. Regional Navigator data, continued ...................................................................... 29 4. Housing data ......................................................................................................... 33 5. Safe Harbor key informant interview protocol ..................................................... 34 6. Minnesota Statute 609.3241 and charges and convictions ................................... 36 7. Charges and convictions in Minnesota in 2014 .................................................... 38 8. Progress Report on Safe Harbor Training & Protocol Development: Office of the Ramsey County Attorney...................................................................................... 39 Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report Wilder Research, September 2015 Figures 1. Logic model: The impact of decriminalizing sexually exploited children and youth as victims and providing coordinated services .................................................. 5 2. Grant overview ............................................................................................................ 6 3. Number of clients served directly by grantee .............................................................. 6 4. Grantee locations ......................................................................................................... 7 5. Eligibility status ........................................................................................................... 9 6. Primary reason for ineligibility ................................................................................... 9 7. Gender ......................................................................................................................... 9 8. Age ............................................................................................................................ 10 9. Race and ethnicity ..................................................................................................... 10 10. Clients identified by a professional as sexually exploited ........................................ 11 11. Client’s relationship to exploiter ............................................................................... 11 12. School enrollment...................................................................................................... 12 13. Employment status .................................................................................................... 12 14. Types of direct services provided by the Regional Navigator .................................. 13 15. Source of referrals to Regional Navigators ............................................................... 17 16. Type of exploitation experienced by client ............................................................... 20 17. Clients who used a shelter for housing in last 6 months? ......................................... 21 18. Types of referrals provided by Regional Navigators ................................................ 21 Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report Wilder Research, September 2015 Acknowledgments This report would not be possible without the work from the grantees and key informant interviewees, who provided much of the data. Our appreciation is extended to Lauren Ryan and Tasha Scott from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), who provided oversight and support. Wilder Research is also grateful to MDH and the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota for providing the funding to support this evaluation. This report is prepared in adherence to Minnesota Statute 145.4718. This statute requires a biennial comprehensive evaluation of the Safe Harbor program, beginning with this report. Wilder Research contributors include: Jennifer Bohlke Brittney Wagner Stephanie Kobbe Walker Bosch Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report Wilder Research, September 2015 Background In July 2014, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), with additional financial support from the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota, contracted with Wilder Research to evaluate the implementation of the Safe Harbor Law and No Wrong Door model in adherence to Minnesota Statute 145.4718. This report summarizes the evaluation of the first year of the implementation and is the first of the biennial reports required. The No Wrong Door framework In 2013, the state of Minnesota made the largest state investment in the provision of services for sexually exploited youth nationwide, funding a portion of the No Wrong Door framework. The MDH uses the following working definition of Minor Commercial Sexual Exploitation (MCSE) to inform its work in this area: MCSE occurs when someone under the age of 18 engages in commercial sexual activity. A commercial sexual activity occurs when anything of value or a promise of anything of value (e.g., money, drugs, food, shelter, rent, or higher status in a gang or group) is given to a person by any means in exchange for any type of sexual activity. A third party may or may not be involved. The No Wrong Door model also outlined eight values and philosophies that should inform its implementation:  Since commercial sexually exploited children and youth may not self-identify, it is essential that those who come into contact with children and youth be trained to identify sexual exploitation and know where to refer for services.  Youth who are commercial sexually exploited are victims of a crime.  Victims should not feel afraid, trapped, or isolated.  Services must be trauma-informed and responsive to individual needs (genderresponsive, culturally competent, age-appropriate, and supportive for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth).  Services must be available across the state.  Youth have a right to privacy and self-determination.  Services must be based in positive youth development.  Sexual exploitation can be prevented. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 1 Wilder Research, September 2015 The No Wrong Door framework itself was based on the following assumptions, which are meant to guide the framework’s implementation. First, whenever possible, existing programs should be used to provide services to victims and service providers must be fully funded to work with victims (including homeless, domestic violence, and sexual assault service providers). Second, when possible, peer and survivor frameworks and supports should be made available to sexually exploited youth. Third, services should be multidisciplinary and coordinated, including law enforcement and service providers working together to identify and serve victims and prosecute traffickers and purchasers. Fourth, holding commercial sexually exploited youth victims in detention is undesirable and should only be accessed for safety purposes if all other safety measures have failed. Lastly, providers working with victims must be screened for criminal offenses to help ensure youth are safe and must have proper experience and training to effectively establish healthy, positive relationships with youth. The Safe Harbor law The original Safe Harbor law was passed in 2011 and provided the legislative framework for legal protections and state services for sexually exploited children and youth. This legislation shifted legal definitions of “sexually exploited youth” and “delinquent child” to acknowledge that exploited minors are not delinquent, but are victims and should be treated as such. Definitions for “prostitution,” “patron,” and “prostitute” were also amended. This legislation also introduced a diversion program for 16 and 17-year-olds engaged in prostitution, which was later expanded to encompass all children and youth under age 18. Furthermore, the legislation increased penalties for facilitators and patrons of commercial sexual exploitation and directed the formation of a work group to create what is now known as the No Wrong Door model. This legislation was expanded in 2013 and 2014. In addition to expanding the eligible age range, major changes included: replacing “youth engaged in prostitution” with “sexually exploited youth,” implementing the No Wrong Door model, creating a statewide protocol for relevant professionals, establishing requirements for grant management and evaluation, and allocating additional funding for trauma-informed and culturally specific services and housing. To date, more than $8 million dollars has been invested in Safe Harbor per biennium. This funds three state agencies to implement No Wrong Door, including protocol development and implementation, specialized services, housing and shelter, outreach, training, and evaluation. In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 609.3241, in 2012 through 2015, a total of $63,217 was transferred to the Safe Harbor for Youth account, held by the Department of Public Safety, from fines assessed statewide against adults convicted of illegal acts Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 2 Wilder Research, September 2015 related to trafficking and prostitution, while acting other than a prostituted person (see Appendix 6 for more detailed information). Collected fees will be made available to organizations serving trafficked and exploited youth this biennium. Methodology The development of the evaluation design and plan was led by Wilder Research, with participation from MDH and various advisory groups. For this report, quantitative data were primarily provided by Regional Navigators, in line with the legislative requirements for the evaluation. Some additional data were collected from Service Provider and Housing grantees as well. Using forms or spreadsheets created by Wilder Research and MDH, Regional Navigators tracked data regarding the eligibility of people requesting services, the number and demographics of clients served, and the type of services and referrals provided. In addition, Regional Navigators conducted an intake assessment with the sexually exploited youth they served in order to both inform the plan for services and provide a baseline for assessing impact. Whenever possible, when clients concluded services (either by mutual agreement or unilateral decision), Regional Navigators conducted an exit assessment that aligned with the intake assessment to assess change and identify any last needed supports. In addition, paper and online versions of a youth feedback survey were developed for clients to self-report their satisfaction with and the outcomes of the services they received.1 For this reporting period, Service Provider and Housing grantees were required to collect information on client eligibility, number and demographics of clients served, and types of services provided. Service Providers also could provide each client the opportunity to complete the youth feedback survey. Notably, due to the sensitive nature of the youth’s situation, grantees were not required to ask many of the questions on the data collection tools and were allowed to choose the wording they used to gather the information they did collect. As a result, for some questions, information was only recorded if the grantee felt it was appropriate to ask, or in some cases, only if the client disclosed it freely. In addition, information collected from these tools are not comparable to data collected from other standardized tools. Qualitative findings were primarily collected through key informant and grantee interviews. Key informant interviews were conducted with experts in the fields of advocacy, child protection, corrections, education, health, justice, law enforcement, prosecution, and youth 1 In the first year of data collection, an insufficient number of exit assessments and youth surveys were collected to include in this report. Additional outcome information will be available once sufficient data have been collected. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 3 Wilder Research, September 2015 victim services. MDH staff and other members of the Safe Harbor Advisory Committee assisted in the development of the list of key informants. From the list, key informants were selected for interviews with the goals of maximizing the diversity of perspectives and depth of expertise captured. All Safe Harbor grantees were provided the opportunity to participate in an interview. The quantitative and all qualitative analysis found in the body of this report was conducted by Wilder Research. Lessons learned from this report will inform the evaluation plan moving forward. Logic model The following logic model gives an overview of the impact providing coordinated services to sexually exploited youth will have, as conceptualized by key stakeholders, including MDH and Wilder Research. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 4 Wilder Research, September 2015 1. Logic model: The impact of decriminalizing sexually exploited children and youth as victims and providing coordinated services PROBLEM The sexual exploitation of youth and the lack of appropriate services for victims GOALS Commercial sexually exploited youth are identified, and receive traumainformed services & housing, and as a result are no longer sexually exploited. OUTPUTS ACTIVITIES Provide comprehensive intervention services and housing for CSEY across the state. Number and type of CSEY-specific services that are population specific & culturally relevant, trauma informed, and victimcentered Provide regionspecific navigation services for CSEY, as well as culturally -specific services. Number of new policies and programs that meet above criteria Provide multisector training on identifying, serving, & referring CSEY. Short term Sexually exploited youth - Increased safety - Increased engagement in services - Decreased acute mental and physical symptoms Number of housing beds for CSEY System stakeholders, including CJS - Increased awareness, understanding, and skills to identify, refer, and serve CSEC Number of stakeholder trainings and number of stakeholders trained CJS - Increased ability to arrest, convict, and penalize exploiters ACRONYM LEGEND CSEY: Commercial sexually exploited youth (includes children) CJS: Criminal Justice System Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 5 Mid term Sexually exploited youth Improvements in: - mental health - physical health - housing stability - financial stability - support system - safety - resources and desire to leave the trafficker(s) permanently System stakeholders, including CJS - Increased identification of CSEY, referral to services and provision of services CJS - Increased assessment, collection, and distribution of penalties to fund investigation, prosecution, and victim services Wilder Research, September 2015 Long term Fewer youth are sexually exploited. More youth who were sexually exploited have the capacity and resources to lead a productive and satisfying life. Fewer adults sexually exploit youth. Grantees Three types of grantees were funded during this reporting period. Most of the data for this report were submitted by the Regional Navigators, as required by the legislature. Service Providers were funded later in the reporting period and were not required to submit data for this evaluation report. Housing grantees are overseen by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and had different requirements (an overview of their data can be found in the Appendix). Figure 2 provides an overview of the grantee type and number of agencies who received funding, along with their grant start date. It should be noted that services typically did not start immediately as many of the grantees had to hire staff and prepare in other ways for service provision. 2. Grant overview Number of agencies receiving funding Grant start date* State agency with oversight Regional Navigator 8 4 in April 2014 and 4 in July 2014 MDH Housing 4* Summer/Fall of 2013 DHS Service Provider 13 November 2014 MDH *This figure includes Breaking Free, which is no longer a housing grantee. Grantees were involved in many activities, including outreach, collaboration, training, and relationship building. In addition, they provided direct services. Regional Navigators provided services to 163 youth, Housing to 74 youth, and Service Providers to 121 youth (Figure 3). Counts may include duplication; due to the sensitive nature of the issues being addressed, state agencies and grantees decided that identifiable information would not be shared with the evaluator or, unless there was a service-related reason for doing so, across agencies. Through the housing grants, the total number of beds specifically for commercial sexually exploited youth is now 21 statewide (the original grants supported 25 beds, but was reduced as one of the grantees is no longer receiving funding). 3. Number of clients served directly by grantee Youth served Regional Navigator Housing Service Provider N N N 163 74 121 Note: Serving clients is a portion of grantees’ responsibilities. Counts do not include indirect work with clients. Counts are not necessarily unduplicated. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 6 Wilder Research, September 2015 Figure 4 provides an overview of where the Grantees are located geographically. 4. Grantee locations Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 7 Wilder Research, September 2015 Safe Harbor Regional Navigator Year One Safe Harbor Regional Navigators began their work in 2014 (some in April and some in July) and had four main goals:2  Improve community capacity to identify commercial sexually exploited youth in Minnesota  Provide regional expertise throughout the state, serving as resources for communities on youth services and sexual exploitation  Increase services available and improve effectiveness of those services to sexually exploited youth to enhance positive outcomes for youth  Enhance coordination and collaboration between systems (criminal justice, health care, child protection and welfare, etc.) and professionals serving, interacting, and engaging youth Clients of Regional Navigators: Eligibility and information at intake The following section focuses on the data collected by Regional Navigators, who were required to report detailed information to MDH and Wilder Research. All data are presented in aggregate. In addition, much of the data is presented by the location of services, either Metro area (defined as an agency that is located in Hennepin or Ramsey County) or Greater Minnesota, as differences between these two groups were noticed during the analysis phase. Eligibility Nearly one in five (18%) of the people that requested direct services from the Regional Navigators were not eligible for services. In total, 62 people (85%) were eligible for Safe Harbor navigation services in the Metro area, and 101 (80%) were eligible in Greater Minnesota, for a total of 163 eligible clients in the state (Figure 5). 2 Protocol and Procedure Manual, MDH. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 8 Wilder Research, September 2015 5. Eligibility status Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Eligible 62 85% 101 80% 163 82% Non-eligible 11 15% 26 20% 37 18% Total 73 100% 127 100% 200 100% Of those who were ineligible for support through Safe Harbor funding, the vast majority (97%) were older than the age cutoff (18 years old) for the program (Figure 6). 6. Primary reason for ineligibility Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Age >18 10 91% 23 100% 33 97% At-Risk* 1 9% - - 1 3% Total 11 100% 23 100% 34 100% Note: Total Ns vary as a result of the response not applying to the client or the data not being collected. *Regional Navigators differed in whether they considered at-risk youth to be eligible for services, thus this figure does not include all at-risk youth seeking services. Gender Clients were predominately female (97%; Figure 7). In the Metro area, all clients were female, while in the Greater Minnesota, 95 percent were female. 7. Gender* Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Female 57 100% 78 95% 135 97% Male 0 0% 4 5% 4 3% Total 57 100% 82 100% 139 100% Note: Total Ns vary as a result of the response not applying to the client or the data not being collected. *Different gender options are available, but were not reported. Age Regional Navigators’ Metro area clients were slightly older than those in Greater Minnesota, with the average age being just under 16 years old in the Metro area and just Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 9 Wilder Research, September 2015 over 15 years old in Greater Minnesota. The most common age for clients in the Metro area was 17 years old and 15 years old for those in Greater Minnesota (Figure 8). 8. Age N Mean Median Mode Metro 59 15.8 16 17 Greater MN 79 15.2 15 15 Total 138 15.4 16 17 Note: Total Ns vary as a result of the response not applying to the client or the data not being collected. Race and ethnicity Clients were asked what races and ethnicities they identify with, and were told to select all options they felt applied (Figure 9). Because clients were able to select multiple options, percentages may not add up to 100 percent. Overall, clients who identified their race/ethnicity were more likely to identify as black or African American (45%). Thirtynine percent of clients identified as white, and 25 percent of clients identified as another race/ethnicity, with American Indian/Alaska Native being most common.3 In the Metro area, clients most commonly identified as black or African American (82%). In Greater Minnesota, clients most commonly identified as white (55%). 9. Race and ethnicity (Check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Black/African American 44 82% 14 18% 58 45% White 8 15% 42 55% 50 39% All others2 9 17% 23 30% 32 25% Total number of clients 54 Note: 76 130 Total Ns vary as a result of the response not applying to the client or the data not being collected. Clients identified by a professional as sexually exploited Clients in the Metro area were more likely to have been identified by police, child protection, or another professional as sexually exploited than those in Greater Minnesota (81% compared to 57%; Figure 10). Overall, 65 percent of clients were identified by a professional as sexually exploited. 2 To protect the confidentiality of the youth, all racial and ethnic categories with an N of less than 10 were grouped under the “other” category. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 10 Wilder Research, September 2015 10. Clients identified by a professional as sexually exploited Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Yes 30 81% 39 57% 69 65% No 7 19% 30 44% 37 35% Total 37 100% 69 100% 106 100% Client’s relationship to exploiter When clients were asked who exploited them, they were able to report more than one person, if applicable. Overall, clients were most likely to identify their exploiter as a friend (27%; Figure 11). They also frequently stated there was no third party involved (24%) or that they were exploited by a partner (21%). It is important to note that the absence of a third party does not imply that the client has freely chosen to become involved in exploitative activities; many clients are exploited in return for basic needs, including shelter and food. Results differ between the Metro area and Greater Minnesota. Forty percent of clients in the Metro area stated they were exploited by a partner, contrasted with two percent of clients in Greater Minnesota. In Greater Minnesota, 32 percent of respondents stated they were exploited by a friend, and another 32 percent of responses were categorized as “other.” Within the “other” category, the most common responses either identified that the client met the exploiter on the Internet or that the client was exploited by their mother’s boyfriend. 11. Client’s relationship to exploiter (check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Friend 10 22% 15 32% 25 27% No third party involved 12 27% 10 21% 22 24% Partner 18 40% 1 2% 19 21% Other 2 4% 15 32% 17 19% Family member 2 4% 7 15% 9 10% Gang member 4 9% 4 9% 8 9% Total 45 100% 47 100% 92 100% Note: Total Ns vary as a result of the response not applying to the client or the data not being collected. Within the “other” category, the most common responses were having met the exploiter on the Internet and mother’s boyfriend. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 11 Wilder Research, September 2015 School enrollment About half of clients (54%) responded they were enrolled in school at intake (Figure 12). Results vary between the Metro area and Greater Minnesota, with clients in Greater Minnesota more likely to report they were enrolled versus clients in the Metro area (65%, compared to 43%). 12. School enrollment Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Enrolled in school 22 43% 33 65% 55 54% Not enrolled in school 29 57% 18 35% 47 46% Total 51 100% 51 100% 102 100% Note: Total Ns vary as a result of the response not applying to the client or the data not being collected. Employment status The majority of clients were not employed at the time of their intake, with 88 percent overall stating they were currently unemployed, which may be expected given the ages of the clients (Figure 13). 13. Employment status Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Employed 4 8% 8 18% 12 13% Not employed 47 92% 37 82% 84 88% Total 51 100% 45 100% 96 100% Direct services provided by Regional Navigators Regional Navigators recorded the types of assistance they provided to clients. Overall, the most frequently offered services are mental health care (53%) and case management (43%; Figure 14). Significant differences existed between the Metro area and Greater Minnesota for all of the most common types of services offered. Regional Navigators in the Metro area were more likely to report that they offered case management, basic needs, medical/health care, legal services, homeless prevention, and housing/shelter. Regional Navigators in Greater Minnesota were more likely to report that they offered mental health care, exploitation prevention, and crisis counseling. Figure 14 reflects the number and percentage of clients providing each service, based on the available data. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 12 Wilder Research, September 2015 14. Types of direct services provided by the Regional Navigator (check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Mental health care 17 30% 51 71% 68 53% Case management 35 62% 20 28% 55 43% Exploitation prevention 3 5% 28 39% 31 24% Crisis counseling 7 12% 23 32% 30 23% Basic needs 24 42% 4 6% 28 22% Medical/health care 24 42% 1 1% 25 19% Housing/shelter 20 35% 2 3% 22 17% Legal services 13 23% 6 8% 19 15% Homeless prevention 11 19% 3 4% 14 11% Total clients served Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 57 72 13 Wilder Research, September 2015 129 Key findings Key informants and Safe Harbor grantees were asked to describe successes and challenges related to the implementation of the Safe Harbor legislation and the perceived impact of the model so far. The most common themes are described in this section. Please note: percentages provided for key informants represent the proportion of respondents who made a comment consistent with the theme. The remaining respondents did not talk about that theme during the interview. Key components of the Safe Harbor/No Wrong Door model  Over 70 percent of Key Informants said that Safe Harbor capitalized on Minnesota’s pre-existing assets in identifying and serving sexually exploited youth. Strengths identified include: several counties having moved toward a model in 2011 that identified commercial sexually exploited youth as victims; specific programs and providers that were serving commercial sexually exploited youth well, including domestic violence programs, homeless youth and youth organizations, child protection staff, and other case managers and social workers; and a strong passion and commitment towards supporting these youth. In Minnesota, we have a good history of strong victim services. We may not have everything in place we need to do, but we have lots of services. We have a strong history of looking at the services we provide and trying to fill gaps. We're so strong in comparison to other states. I think we'll get to where we need to be in terms of these services. – Justice/corrections sector key informant4 We have a lot of pioneers in the state, and they have a good understanding of this population and their needs. – Key informant  Sixty-seven percent of key informants said that the collaboration across and within sectors, as well as across geographic locations, has characterized the implementation of the model and has been an essential component of the model’s success so far. Several of these key informants specifically noted that trust was building between law enforcement and social service agencies. Safe Harbor grantees also discussed the importance of creating collaborations to the success of their work. [One success has been] building collaboration amongst the systems people-- everything from human services and school people to law enforcement and health providers and prosecutors. – Legal key informant 4 For those respondents who gave permission, they are identified in their quotations by sector. For all others, they are identified simply as “key informant.” Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 14 Wilder Research, September 2015  Sixty-three percent of key informants and some Safe Harbor grantees said that trainings for professionals on trafficking, identification, and the Safe Harbor/No Wrong Door model were a successful component of implementation thus far. Several key informants mentioned that training of law enforcement has been effective and helped with the identification of victims. Metro area key informants were more likely to mention the effectiveness of law enforcement trainings than those working statewide.  Forty-two percent of key informants made comments related to the effectiveness of the navigator role and Regional Navigators’ ability to coordinate efforts and act as a regional contact for other organizations and agencies. I think the Regional Navigators have had a huge impact on coordinating efforts -- it hasn't been without its challenges…but it’s, for me, hard to overstate how different it is to be a child who has been identified as a trafficking victim -- how different it is now than it was before Safe Harbor. – Key informant Many Regional Navigators and other Safe Harbor grantees discussed the importance of having the navigator role be region- or culture-specific so Regional Navigators can strategize based on the assets and gaps affecting their specific clients. The Regional Navigators’ consideration of regional and cultural factors and the impact on planning was evident in the interviews with them, as they described their different strategies given the needs and strengths of their communities. In addition, Regional Navigators and some Housing and Service Provider grantees discussed the benefits of Regional Navigators providing additional services in their area, being available to meet youth out in the community, building connections between organizations, and being a central resource for information and coordination of services.  Twenty-five percent of key informants highlighted the passing of the Safe Harbor law and decriminalization of youth victims of trafficking and exploitation as a key component of success.  Twenty-nine percent of key informants said a key component of success was having funding and resources available to implement the model, create services, and establish housing. I would say providing services has greatly been enhanced through funding for housing and service providers to intervene. – Prosecution key informant  Almost all Housing grantees perceive separate residences and group services for commercial sexually exploited youth as crucial to positive outcomes, adding that they felt combining these youth with youth who have experienced different types of trauma (including non-commercial sexual exploitation) is detrimental to both groups. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 15 Wilder Research, September 2015 Challenges related to the implementation  Sixty-seven percent of key informants said that a lack of funding inhibited full implementation of the model, including the development of needed housing, services, training, and investigations. [One challenge is] a lack of funding that's needed to adequately provide services to all youth who need them at the level we need them. There's not enough shelter space or money for ongoing services. This population needs long-term care. This isn't a 3 month or 6 month intervention. You need a minimum of 6 months to a year of services to be effective. – Prosecution key informant  Fifty percent of key informants said that there are still some challenges related to collaboration and the creation of a cohesive infrastructure across organizations and sectors, including the need to build more trust between service providers and law enforcement. Other challenges included: unclear roles of various entities; differing approaches to how to serve youth among sectors; too many task forces and a lack of cohesion between different sectors; and a need for more coordination with groups already serving sexually exploited youth, such as homeless youth, domestic violence organizations, education, and after-school programming. [One of the challenges is] probably lack of precisely knowing who is supposed to do what within the realm of service providers, the prosecutorial side, the victim service providers, county officials, nonprofits. It's starting to be addressed but I think it's still unclear what it falls under -- so we have coalitions of general crime, sexual assault, domestic violence. Who provides what services? – Key informant Many of the Safe Harbor grantees described challenges in the amount of time needed to identify the appropriate contact within key organizations in their region, conduct outreach to them, and then build trust with their staff in order to access referrals, improve the infrastructure, and initiate collaborations. Most of these grantees were surprised about how much time outreach and trust-building took and were challenged to maintain their other responsibilities while this work was being done. Some grantees also discussed difficulties developing engagement and collaboration as a result of confusion over stakeholder roles and the many coalition and advisory meetings stakeholders are expected to attend. In order to understand the referral source to Regional Navigators, grantees reported who referred their clients to them. It was found that clients were frequently referred to Safe Harbor grantees by child protection/welfare organizations (20%), community agencies (14%), and law enforcement (13%). Referral sources differ between the Metro area and Greater Minnesota, with clients in the Metro area more likely to have been referred by child protection/welfare organizations or community agencies, and Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 16 Wilder Research, September 2015 clients in Greater Minnesota most commonly referred by law enforcement or probation (Figure 15). 15. Source of referrals to Regional Navigators Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Child protection/welfare 24 39% 9 9% 33 20% Community agency 15 24% 8 8% 23 14% Law enforcement 8 13% 13 13% 21 13% Probation - - 11 11% 11 7% Other 15 24% 60 59% 75 46% Total 62 100% 101 100% 163 100% Note: Sources in the “Other” were collapsed because there were too few to report separately, but include school staff, family, friends, etc.  Fifty percent of key informants mentioned some aspect of the navigator model as a challenge. Some said that the role of the Regional Navigator is somewhat unclear and may be too complex for one entity. Several felt there are too few Regional Navigators and they are too spread out geographically, especially in Greater Minnesota where Regional Navigators cover larger regions that are less connected and have fewer services. A lot of times, programs are feeling overwhelmed, which is to be expected. We didn't realize how big the [Regional Navigators’) regions were – there is a lot of ground to cover. We’re trying to figure out where the Navigator needs to be, what role [he/she] needs to play, building something sustainable so that it's not all on the Navigator to coordinate – Key informant Similarly, most Regional Navigators said more Regional Navigators are needed to provide all of the requested services in all of the counties in their region and to ensure that there is local, easily accessible support when a youth is identified. Some of the other Safe Harbor grantees discussed concerns about the navigator role as well, including difficulties accessing navigator support when they needed it and confusion about what is included in the navigator’s role, especially given that Regional Navigators define their roles differently.  Thirty-eight percent of key informants said there is a lack of clarity around confidentiality of victim information and interpretation of mandated reporting laws. Several key informants and Safe Harbor grantees expressed that direct service providers are concerned that being required to report victim information to law enforcement may prevent victims from seeking or accepting services. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 17 Wilder Research, September 2015 I think the first and one of the biggest [challenges] is the lack of clarity around confidentiality issues and mandated reporting. That's something that at this point is based on what county you live in. I know service providers are unsure if it's a mandated report and how to go about doing that and who to go to. And then, our member programs and direct service providers, they are really concerned about the effect that mandated reporting will have on young people seeking services. That is something problematic that we need to figure out how to handle. – Youth victim services key informant  Twenty-five percent of key informants and a few of the Safe Harbor grantees cited challenges related to the implementation of the Safe Harbor/No Wrong Door model in tribal communities. They stated that the model does not fit the realities of many tribal communities because tribes were not adequately consulted about the development of the model beforehand. In addition, they said there is a lack of awareness among tribal leaders and populations of the existence of the model, a shortage of services for victims and a gap in culturally-appropriate services and materials. People aren't aware of it. People just aren't aware of the law, including tribal leaders. We need to get the information to tribal leaders. There's also this colonized thinking that we have to have lawyers develop tribal laws and codes for us. We don't. We don't have to model our laws after western laws. We can model them however we want to model them. It is important to get to tribal leadership to say this is a really good model, take a look at this, let's get people together to put some language in place. Here's the basic language we can add to it to make it more appropriate to our community. – Key informant  Twenty-five percent of key informants spoke of a debate over whether or not locked placements were needed for youth when they are initially identified. Some feel locked placement is necessary, because youth often leave services before they are assessed and receive appropriate treatment, while others feel that a locked facility would be disempowering and detrimental to the youth. I would say the most important is more housing for the victims and the initial placement, and finding initial placement for victims when they’re off the street. For most kids, they need something more secure and maybe there are ways we can provide full comprehensive services, and that is the biggest thing that we need. Kids leave and go back on the streets, and what they really need is a chemical dependency assessment or mental health assessment…I think kind of what that really needed is more of a medical model. – Key informant A few of the Safe Harbor grantees also made note of this debate, with all who mentioned it in support of promoting youth self-determination and, thus, not having secured facilities.  One challenge specific to the Safe Harbor grantees, and noted by almost all of the grantees interviewed, was confusion about the evaluation, specifically the data collection requirements, including what forms to complete and how and when to Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 18 Wilder Research, September 2015 complete them. Data collection tools and processes changed multiple times during the first nine months of the initiative in order to reflect changes in the implementation of the Safe Harbor grants, integrate grantee feedback, accommodate a delay in the grantee database, and make use of lessons learned by all stakeholders (including the evaluators), leading to much of the confusion. Grantees also expressed concerns about the amount of time consumed by the evaluation and other reporting requirements.  Several Safe Harbor grantees described difficulties getting youth access to Safe Harbor services. Difficulties resulted, in part, from the extensive outreach and trustbuilding needed for other organizations to provide referrals to new Safe Harbor services, the challenge of helping staff from other organizations remember to call the Safe Harbor grantee in the midst of an emergency, and a lack of transportation to get youth to services. While most of these problems were between grantees and organizations that did not receive Safe Harbor funding, in some cases they also existed between two grantees. Observed impacts  The most commonly mentioned change, observed by 58 percent of key informants, all of the Regional Navigators, and most of the other Safe Harbor grantees interviewed was increased awareness and understanding of the commercial sexual exploitation of youth, including how to identify victims. The majority of key informants and Safe Harbor grantees felt that professionals’ lack of awareness about what commercial sexual exploitation is, how it happens, and its frequency were substantial barriers to identifying and serving sexually exploited youth prior to Safe Harbor. These key informants said they have seen increased awareness among service providers, health care professionals, state and county officials, and the general population. I've seen it in the church bulletin-- I've just seen so much more awareness throughout our community and up to the Capitol since implementation of this [model]. – Law enforcement key informant Adding to our knowledge about commercial sexual exploitation of youth in Minnesota, Regional Navigators provided information about the exploitation their clients have experienced. Trafficking was most commonly cited (56%). Survival sex (41%) and posing for nude photos/pornography/videos (20%) followed in frequency. Clients in the Metro area were slightly more likely than clients in Greater Minnesota to have experienced trafficking (64% compared to 48%; Figure 16). Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 19 Wilder Research, September 2015 16. Type of exploitation experienced by client Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Trafficked 30 64% 24 48% 54 56% Survival sex 18 38% 22 44% 40 41% Posing for nude photos/ pornography/videos 9 19% 10 20% 19 20% Other 1 2% 5 10% 6 6%  Fifty percent of key informants noted that there is now more conversation about how to best serve commercial sexually exploited youth and more attempts to improve service provision. Conversations have begun among and within organizations to evaluate and develop service provision practices and procedures. Discussions have also specifically addressed how to serve male victims and LGBTQ youth. I think people are learning about what to do as far as engaging with these youth and engaging with them in a way to build a relationship and build trust. As far as providing services, people are learning more about the right ways to serve these youth. – Key informant  Another noted outcome, mentioned by 58 percent of key informants, and most of the Safe Harbor grantees was the creation of housing and services for sexually exploited youth. Respondents said that there is more service infrastructure, there are services in more communities and there are more service providers. Metro area key informants were more likely to cite this as a strength than those working in Greater Minnesota. The biggest success is that we've gone from a state with very few resources to one with the capacity to build capacity across the state. Now we have options. Before there was this huge gap -- if there was a victim, where do we send them?...It’s remarkable that we've built the capacity of the entire state. If they ever had contact with the victim before implementation of the model, they weren’t strategic about it or doing outreach, and now they are. They are cognizant, strategic, and intentional. – Key informant Data collected by the Regional Navigators reflect the use of shelter housing by clients. Of those who responded to this question, 89 percent of clients had stayed in a shelter (not necessarily a Safe Harbor shelter) in the last six months. Clients in Greater Minnesota were less likely to say they had stayed in a shelter, with 60 percent responding “yes,” as compared to 100 percent of respondents in the Metro area (Figure 17). Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 20 Wilder Research, September 2015 17. Clients who used a shelter for housing in last 6 months? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Yes 41 100% 9 60% 50 89% No - - 6 40% 6 11% 41 100% 15 100% 56 100% Total  Thirty-eight percent of key informants and several of the Safe Harbor grantees noted seeing service providers, law enforcement, and/or the general population shift from seeing sexually exploited youth as delinquents to viewing them as victims.  Twenty-five percent of key informants spoke of Minnesota emerging as a national leader in law and service provision for sexually exploited youth.  Most Safe Harbor grantees noted new referrals, collaborations and cross-agency coordination to improve services to commercial sexually exploited youth. As mentioned earlier, 67 percent of key informants also noted the existence and importance of new collaborations, but described them as a key component to the model likely due to differences in the interview questions. In terms of new referrals, overall, Regional Navigators were most likely to report that they provided referrals for medical services/health care and housing/shelter. Referrals made by Regional Navigators in the Metro area and Greater Minnesota differ in a few areas. Regional Navigators in the Metro area were more likely to refer clients to medical services/health care and legal services, and Regional Navigators in Greater Minnesota were more likely to refer clients to housing/shelter and exploitation prevention services (Figure 18). 18. Types of referrals provided by Regional Navigators Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Medical/health care 25 51% 2 5% 27 31% Housing/shelter 10 20% 10 26% 20 23% Legal services 13 27% 1 3% 14 16% Case management 2 4% 4 10% 6 7% Exploitation prevention - - 5 13% 5 3% Financial support 1 2% 1 3% 2 2% Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 21 Wilder Research, September 2015  Many Safe Harbor grantees reported identifying successful approaches to reaching at-risk and sexually exploited youth that will assist with future work with these youth. A couple of grantees specifically highlighted the importance of gaining the buy-in and involvement of school staff. Some of the grantees also described their success at reaching high-risk youth in particular. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 22 Wilder Research, September 2015 Recommendations The following section provides recommendations from the evaluator based on the data collected. As noted earlier, percentages represent proportion of respondents who made a comment consistent with the theme.  The State should seek options for full funding Seventy-one percent of key informants and most Safe Harbor grantees said that the full funding requested from the Minnesota Legislature is needed in order to adequately implement services, create housing, support training, and provide resources for law enforcement investigations and identification of exploitation.  Expand age limit of Safe Harbor law Expanding the age limit of the Safe Harbor law to include victims age 18 and older was recommended by 42 percent of key informants and all of the Safe Harbor grantees. Grantees also noted the importance of allowing for long-term service provision by eliminating the age limit (for example, a 17-year-old youth can continue services when they turn 18). Certainly there is no good intellectual or moral reason why victims need to be under 18. For youth who are aging out, if they're identified at 17, they'll still need help at 19. Having the system deal with victims of trafficking rather than youth victims of trafficking. Even if it's split up, but making sure there's not a gap, or a complete fall-off-the-cliff when you turn 18 is the single biggest thing to help victims. – Advocacy key informant  Develop more services, including 24 hour triage, outreach and transportation, as well as services for males and specific cultural groups Forty-two percent of key informants and some of the Safe Harbor grantees, recommended developing more services for commercial sexually exploited youth. Respondents highlighted the need for more of the following: mental health service providers who are trained in working with victims and in complex trauma, 24 hour triage services, services for male victims and for LGBTQ youth, and culturally appropriate services for specific racial and ethnic groups. Respondents also discussed the importance of having multiple services located in one easily accessible site to help youth make use of them. The need for additional services was particularly notable in tribal communities and in Greater Minnesota.  Create more housing Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 23 Wilder Research, September 2015 Forty-two percent of key informants and almost all of the Safe Harbor grantees said that more housing is needed, including both short-term and long-term placements for youth who cannot return home, as well as beds for males and LGBTQ youth. Respondents also noted the importance of having housing that is exclusively for commercial sexually exploited youth. Respondents in Greater Minnesota were more likely than Metro area respondents to note lack of housing as a challenge.  Improve collaboration across sectors Forty-two percent of key informants and many Safe Harbor grantees recommended: building on and working with existing service infrastructures; finding ways to facilitate more communication among sectors; connecting youth service providers; and including more stakeholders from education, after-school programming, health care, and services for adult victims, as well as victims of youth commercial sexual exploitation, into the discussion of how to best serve sexually exploited youth.  Focus on prevention Forty-two percent of key informants and some grantees said there needs to be more focus on prevention strategies, such as addressing the culture of demand for trafficking and providing education on healthy relationships and healthy sexuality. The culture today, when you pick up advertising or look at reality TV, and you see the objectification of girls and women and you see fashions for girls and women-- a little girl being dressed up like an adult in a sexual way. All that clothing says it's ok for us to look at a child or teen as a sexual object-- that needs to change. Second, there is this "boys will be boys" or transition from youth/teenage years to being a man, where that includes having sex, and not necessarily with someone who wants to have sex with you, and that it's ok to pay for sex. You have to look at the horrific ads online. We need to say that that's not acceptable in our world. Only then will we see a significantly reduced number of these victims. – Prosecution key informant  Provide grantee training upfront and expand training opportunities to others Several grantees suggested that future grantees receive more training at the very beginning of the grant on grant logistics and on skills and information that will support their work in their region. Fifty-eight percent of key informants, all Regional Navigators, and some of the other grantees that were interviewed said there is a need for more training, and for more funding specifically for training. The majority said that training is needed for sectors outside of law enforcement such as schools, sexual assault nurses, domestic violence agencies, child protection and welfare, homeless youth shelters (not just Safe Harbor shelters), and other youth organizations. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 24 Wilder Research, September 2015  Make the model more responsive to schools and to other cultural groups, including tribal communities It is important that efforts support all sectors that work with youth, including schools, and all cultures, including tribes. Thirty-three percent of key informants and a few Safe Harbor grantees recommended focusing on making the law and implementation more effective for tribes. Specific recommendations included bringing awareness of the law to tribal leaders and communities, providing resources to help tribes develop codes similar to the Safe Harbor law and to support their implementations of services for victims, and providing culturally appropriate services and materials as part of the Safe Harbor/No Wrong Door model. I would also say finding really meaningful and appropriate ways to engage tribal communities better is something we need to work on. We know the rates are three times higher for native women and girls and that is a really important voice that could be better represented in this work. – Youth victim services key informant  Increase public awareness and understanding of commercial sexual exploitation Twenty-five percent of respondents and almost all of the Safe Harbor grantees recommended more efforts to increase awareness and education among the general population, service providers, and other professionals who come in contact with youth of the realities of human trafficking in order to increase the number of youth who are successfully identified and assisted.  Expand the evaluation to encompass all grantees work and think longitudinally While data collection efforts have recently been streamlined by the introduction of the Apricot database system, there are still things that need to be considered. For instance, it is important to continue to look into ways of de-duplicating data to better understand the experience of a trafficked youth who has sought out help using the Safe Harbor/No Wrong Door model. Reporting outcomes in future analysis is also important. Using the recently created youth surveys, as well as comparing the information collected during intake with the information collected at follow up and exit, will provide insight about individual outcomes.  Clarify the roles of grantees, other stakeholders, and committees Most of the people who were interviewed expressed feeling overwhelmed or confused about some of the Safe Harbor activities, including the many advisory groups, committees, and subcommittees that are happening statewide. Additionally, key informants and grantees were not always clear about who was to be responsible for specific activities, programs, policies, or interventions. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 25 Wilder Research, September 2015 Appendix 1. Example of referral processes in some regions (not applicable to all regions) 2. Service flowchart upon referral to Regional Navigator 3. Regional Navigator data, continued 4. Housing data 5. Safe Harbor key informant interview protocol 6. Minnesota Statute 609.3241, income, Statewide data 7. Charges and convictions in Minnesota in 2014 8. Progress Report on Safe Harbor Training & Protocol Development: Office of the Ramsey County Attorney Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 26 Wilder Research, September 2015 1. Example of referral processes in some regions (not applicable to all regions) Sexual Exploitation/ Trafficking Flow Chart Possible contact youth have: Community organizations School o Social worker o Coach o Teacher Child Protection Law Enforcement Health Care Providers o Public health o Family Doctor Advocates Employers Family Friends Relatives Created by the Southwest and Southeast Regional Navigators. Confirmed sexually exploited / trafficked youth if you checked YES to one or more of the following:  Child reported being forced or coerced into sexual activity for the monetary benefit of another person.  Law enforcement confirmed through an investigation that the child has been trafficked or engaged in any commercial, sexually-exploitative activity.  Child reported “consensual” participation in a sexual act in exchange for food, shelter, transportation, drugs, alcohol, money, status or other items of value. High Risk if you have checked YES to one or more of the following:  Confirmed or reported use of hotels for parties or sexual encounters  Unauthorized travel out of town  Unaccounted for injuries or tattoos  Three of more of the below “at risk” factors are checked At Risk if you have checked YES to fewer than three of the following:  Knowledge of or reports that indicate child has a history of being missing for 2 or times within the last six months (parent doesn’t know where/who child is with)  History of physical or sexual abuse earlier in life  Child has friends/family that have been involved in the commercial sex industry  Reports by child or adults that child has had or currently has multiple anonymous sex partners  Child has possession of money, cell phone or other items that cannot be explained or accounted for  Child has used the internet to post sexually-explicit materials  Sexual or romantic relationship with older partner or unwilling to provide information about sex partner  History of sexually transmitted diseases  Gang affiliation disclosed, reported or suspected Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 27 Wilder Research, September 2015 Report to social services and/or law enforcement. Social services/ law enforcement refer to and consult with Regional Navigator. Report to Social Services and consult with Regional Navigator for individualized services. Refer to & Consult with Regional Navigator for individualized services 2. Service flowchart upon referral to Regional Navigator Note: If a Regional Navigator only provides referrals to a third party and did not have direct contact with the youth, then only the Service Tracking Form should be completed. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 28 Wilder Research, September 2015 3. Regional Navigator data, continued A1. Types of medical care clients have received (check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % 24 100% 29 88% 53 93% Disability - - 6 18% 6 11% Chronic illness 1 4% 1 3% 2 4% Other physical illness/issue - - - - - - 24 100% 33 100% 57 100% Mental illness/issue Total A2. Vulnerabilities/experiences for at-risk/exploited minors (Check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % History of running away 36 69% 46 69% 82 69% Depression/PTSD 35 67% 40 60% 75 63% Drug/alcohol use 24 46% 46 69% 70 59% Unsafe media usage (sending sexually explicit pictures/messages 35 67% 17 25% 52 44% History of SA/DA as a child 8 15% 43 64% 51 43% No disclosure, but at-risk 8 15% 37 55% 45 38% History of living in foster care 5 10% 28 42% 33 28% Unable to pay for basic needs 15 29% 16 24% 31 26% Know anyone who is/has been involved in survival sex, etc. 7 14% 21 31% 28 24% Homeless 6 12% 6 9% 12 10% Other - - 7 10% 7 6% Total 52 100% 67 100% 119 100% Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 29 Wilder Research, September 2015 A3. Who does client live with? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Parents/guardian 5 28% 29 60 % 34 52% Other adult(s) who are not related 1 6% 12 25% 13 20% Other youth who are not related 11 61% 0 0% 11 17% Other adult family member(s) - - 5 10% 5 8% No one 1 6% 1 2% 2 3% Spouse/partner - - 1 2% 1 2% 18 100% 48 100% 66 100% Total A4. Does client have children? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Yes 6 14% 5 9% 11 11% No 37 86% 53 91% 90 89% Total 43 100% 58 100% 101 100% A5. In the past year, how has client supported herself/himself? (Check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % No income/source(s) of support 11 44% 17 46% 28 45% Parental/guardian support 8 32% 9 24% 17 27% Employment (part- of fulltime) 1 4% 4 11% 5 8% Disability/SSI 3 12% 1 3% 4 7% Food support 2 8% 2 5% 4 7% Spouse/partner's income/benefits 1 4% 2 5% 3 5% Child support/caregiver income/benefits - - 2 5% 2 3% MFIP/DWP/TANIFF - - 1 3% 1 2% Cash assistance - - 1 3% 1 2% Other 1 4% - - 1 2% Total 25 100% 37 100% 62 100% Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 30 Wilder Research, September 2015 A6. Is client receiving care/treatment/service/medication for any of the following? (Check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % 24 100% 29 88% 53 93% Disability - - 6 18% 6 11% Chronic illnesses 1 4% 1 3% 2 4% Total 24 100% 33 100% 57 100% Mental illness/issue A7. Where does client live? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Parent/guardian's place 9 21% 24 42% 33 33% Other 21 48% 5 9% 26 26% Detention center 4 9% 8 14% 12 12% Temporary housing 2 5% 5 9% 7 7% Treatment center 5 11% 1 2% 6 6% Other family 0 0% 5 9% 5 5% Client's own place 1 2% 3 5% 4 4% Foster care 0 0% 3 5% 3 3% Homeless/couch hopping 2 5% 0 0% 2 2% The Link/Passageways 0 0% 2 4% 2 2% Spouse/partner's place 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% Total 44 100% 57 100% 101 100% A8. Does client have family they can talk to? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Yes/Always/Sometimes 29 62% 35 70% 64 66% No/Rarely/Never 18 38% 15 30% 33 34% Total 47 100% 50 100% 97 100% Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 31 Wilder Research, September 2015 A9. Does client have friends they can talk to? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % Yes/Always/Sometimes 37 82% 35 76% 72 79% No/Rarely/Never 8 18% 11 24% 19 21% Total 45 100% 46 100% 91 100% A10. How many times received medical care or seen a doctor in last 6 months? Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % None 5 18% 5 36% 10 24% Once 20 71% 7 50% 27 64% Twice or more 3 11% 2 14% 5 12% Total 28 100% 14 100% 42 100% A11. Types of medical care clients have received (check all that apply) Metro Greater MN Total N % N % N % 24 100% 29 88% 53 93% Disability - - 6 18% 6 11% Chronic illness 1 4% 1 3% 2 4% Other physical illness/issue - - - - - - 24 100% 33 100% 57 100% Mental illness/issue Total Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 32 Wilder Research, September 2015 4. Housing data A12. Housing – eligibility Number of youth referred to housing N % Eligible 86 84% Ineligible 16 16% Total 102 100% A13. Housing – services provided N Encouragement 121 Case management 120 Basic needs 120 Housing 116 Mental health 108 Medical 90 Education 80 Financial support 63 Substance abuse 29 Other 26 Legal 6 A14. Housing – referrals provided N Encouragement 47 Medical 41 Education 32 Legal 30 Mental health 16 Case management 4 Substance abuse 4 Other 4 Basic needs 2 Financial support 1 Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 33 Wilder Research, September 2015 5. Safe Harbor key informant interview protocol Hi. My name is ___________________ and I am calling from Wilder Research. As you may know, the Minnesota Department of Health is working with Wilder Research to identify best practices for identifying and serving youth survivors of trafficking and exploitation through evaluation of the Safe Harbor/Now Wrong Door model implementation, which I’ll refer to as the Safe Harbor model. You were identified by other Safe Harbor stakeholders as someone who has important knowledge and/or experience in this area. We appreciate your agreeing to take part in this interview. It will take approximately 30-40 minutes to complete the interview. Your responses will be aggregated with the responses of other individuals we are interviewing, and themes will be presented to Minnesota Department of Health. In addition, major themes will likely be shared with the MN legislature and other stakeholder groups. Is now still a good time to complete the interview? [CONTINUE OR RESCHEDULE] Do you have any questions before I begin with the first interview question? 1. To start, I’m wondering how long you’ve been working in a field related to serving victims of trafficking or exploitation? In what roles? The next questions are about the identification and provision of services to youth survivors of trafficking and exploitation prior to the implementation of Safe Harbor (prior to August 2014). For these questions, you can speak to your community, region, the state, or your sector, whatever makes the most sense to you. 2. Prior to the implementation of the Safe Harbor model, what were the biggest gaps or barriers to identifying and serving youth survivors of trafficking and exploitation? [PROBE HERE AND THROUGHOUT SECTION regarding: services available, attitudes of local entities, communication issues not discussed earlier, the implementation of the grants, training available] a. [IF CLEAR FROM RESPONSE, RECORD WITHOUT ASKING THE GROUP/SECTOR/GEOGRAPHY R IS DISCUSSING. IF NOT CLEAR FROM RESPONSE, ASK] What group, sector, or geography are you thinking about as you answer this question? 3. Prior to the implementation of the model, what were [SECTOR, GROUP, OR GEOGRAPHY’S] greatest assets or strengths related to identifying and serving youth survivors of trafficking and exploitation? The next questions are about the time since the implementation of the Safe Harbor model began (since August 2014). Again, you can speak to your community, region, the state, or your sector, whatever makes the most sense to you. 4. Since beginning implementation of the Safe Harbor model, what is going well about identifying and providing services and support to youth survivors of trafficking and exploitation? [BE SURE BOTH IDENTIFICATION AND PROVISION OF SERVICES IS ADDRESSED] 5. Since beginning implementation of the model, what other positive impacts have you seen from the Safe Harbor model? Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 34 Wilder Research, September 2015 [PROBE HERE AND THROUGHOUT SECTION regarding: services available, attitudes of local entities, communication issues, the implementation of the grants, trainings available. Are there any unintended impacts (e.g., youth being arrested for other/worse crimes?] 6. Since beginning implementation of the model, what do you think has been most problematic about identifying and providing services and support to youth survivors of trafficking and exploitation? 7. What other barriers or gaps have affected the implementation of the Safe Harbor model? My next questions are about your profession’s/sector’s experiences specifically. 8. [Other than what you’ve already mentioned] What successes, if any, has your sector/profession had incorporating the Safe Harbor model? 9. [Other than what you’ve already mentioned] What barriers or difficulties has your sector/profession experienced incorporating the Safe Harbor model? The last set of questions are about next steps. 10. What do you see as the most important next steps for the implementation of the current Safe Harbor Law and Safe Harbor model? 11. What suggestions do you have for changing the Safe Harbor Law or No Wrong Door Model to increase or expand their impact? Confidentiality Lastly, in the introduction, I assured you that your responses are confidential, and that is still the case. However, now that you have seen the questions and provided your responses, I would like to know what level of confidentiality you would prefer for your answers:  Maintain confidentiality: Do not share individual responses (your answers will only be reported in aggregate)  Share my de-identified responses (your individual answers will not be attached to your name or any identifying information. For example, we could quote something you said as long as the quote doesn’t contain information that identifies that you said it)  Share my responses (your individual answers will not be shared with your name, but identifying contextual information, such as your field or sector, may be included in the quote if it adds to its meaning) 12. Those are all my questions, do you have any additional comments? Thanks you so much for your time and for sharing your expertise! Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 35 Wilder Research, September 2015 6. Minnesota Statute 609.3241 and charges and convictions This statute prescribes the amounts and collection of fines for perpetrators of sex trafficking and exploitation (other than prostituted persons). Fines assessed and collected as prescribed in 609.3241(c) 3, are held by the Department of Public Safety in a Safe Harbor for Youth Account. As of September 1, 2015, the current balance was slightly over $63,000. Within the biennium, this funding will be allocated out to organizations that service sexually exploited youth through grants. Individual counties are responsible for collecting and distributing fines dollars as described in 609.3241 subd (c) 1 & 2. The statute reads as follows: (a) When a court sentences an adult convicted of violating section 609.322 or 609.324, while acting other than as a prostitute, the court shall impose an assessment of not less than $500 and not more than $750 for a violation of section 609.324, subdivision 2, or a misdemeanor violation of section 609.324, subdivision 3; otherwise the court shall impose an assessment of not less than $750 and not more than $1,000. The assessment shall be distributed as provided in paragraph (c) and is in addition to the surcharge required by section 357.021, subdivision 6. (b) The court may not waive payment of the minimum assessment required by this section. If the defendant qualifies for the services of a public defender or the court finds on the record that the convicted person is indigent or that immediate payment of the assessment would create undue hardship for the convicted person or that person's immediate family, the court may reduce the amount of the minimum assessment to not less than $100. The court also may authorize payment of the assessment in installments. (c) The assessment collected under paragraph (a) must be distributed as follows: (1) 40 percent of the assessment shall be forwarded to the political subdivision that employs the arresting officer for use in enforcement, training, and education activities related to combating sexual exploitation of youth, or if the arresting officer is an employee of the state, this portion shall be forwarded to the commissioner of public safety for those purposes identified in clause (3); (2) 20 percent of the assessment shall be forwarded to the prosecuting agency that handled the case for use in training and education activities relating to combating sexual exploitation activities of youth; and (3) 40 percent of the assessment must be forwarded to the commissioner of public safety to be deposited in the safe harbor for youth account in the special revenue fund and are appropriated to the commissioner for distribution to crime victims services organizations that provide services to sexually exploited youth, as defined in section 260C.007, subdivision 31. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 36 Wilder Research, September 2015 Budget Period Collected Amount Description 2012 Penalty Assessment--Safe Harbor $ 5,420.00 2012 NDR County Receipts - 1000 (Prostitution Fines) $ 1,612.50 Budget Period Description Collected Amount 2013 Penalty Assessment-Safe Harbor $ 23,359.07 2013 NDR County Receipts - 1000 (Prostitution Fines) $ $ 5,420.00 Amount transferred to Safe Harbor for Youth $ 23,359.07 437.50 Budget Period Description 2014 Penalty Assessment--Safe Harbor $ 21,128.55 2014 NDR County Receipts - 1000 (Prostitution Fines) $ Collected Amount Amount transferred to Safe Harbor for Youth $ 21,128.55 250.00 Budget Period Description 2015 Prostitution Forfeiture Funds (Prostitution Fines) $ 2015 Penalty Assessment--Safe Harbor $ 13,309.98 2015 NDR County Receipts - 1000 (Prostitution Fines) $ Note: Amount transferred to Safe Harbor for Youth Collected Amount Amount transferred to Safe Harbor for Youth 1,322.85 $ 13,309.98 1,000.00 Funds were collected and were transferred to the Safe Harbor for youth account under Minnesota Statute 609.3241. Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 37 Wilder Research, September 2015 7. Charges and convictions in Minnesota in 2014 Statewide 2014 Filings/Outcome, Statute Adult Adjudicated delinquent Use of Minor in Sexual Performance Juvenile Grand Total 1 1 1 1 Convicted 377 377 Coercion 13 13 Disorderly House 9 9 Loitering 15 15 Other Prostitution Charge 271 271 Solicit/Induce/Sex Trafficking 24 24 Solicitation of a Child 42 42 Use of Minor in Sexual Performance 3 3 Filings 624 10 634 Coercion 7 1 8 Disorderly House 10 10 Loitering 36 36 Other Prostitution Charge 409 2 411 Prostitution-Violation of Order for Protection 1 1 Solicit/Induce/Sex Trafficking 48 48 Solicitation of a Child 101 101 Use of Minor in Sexual Performance 12 7 19 1001 11 1012 Grand Total Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 38 Wilder Research, September 2015 8. Progress Report on Safe Harbor Training & Protocol Development: Office of the Ramsey County Attorney Safe Harbor: First year evaluation report 39 Wilder Research, September 2015 Progress Report on Safe Harbor Training & Protocol Development Office of the Ramsey County Attorney January 15, 2015 Executive Summary In 2013, the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office (RCAO) was appropriated $700,000 by the Minnesota Legislature to undertake a series of protocol-development and training activities in support of Minnesota’s Safe Harbor Law, a groundbreaking change in how the state treats sexually exploited youth. Specifically, the RCAO was charged with developing a statewide model protocol on identifying and intervening with sexually exploited and trafficked youth, conducting statewide training for law enforcement and prosecutors, and developing and disseminating investigative best practices to identify victims and traffickers. The RCAO’s plan to accomplish these goals has involved:  The development of a statewide model protocol for identification and intervention, with an extensive process led by the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MNCASA). This process has involved input from fifteen disciplines (from law enforcement to judicial to education to health care), the incorporation of diverse cultural perspectives, and well over 200 individual participants. The resulting model – a set of tools, best practices, and other resources that communities will be able to use to develop their own customized protocols – is expected to be available in fall 2015.  Training and support specifically for law enforcement, including a number of statewide and regional conferences and trainings co-sponsored by the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), a webpage hosted by the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, as well as several resources co-sponsored by the Gerald D. Vick Human Trafficking Task Force (Vick Task Force): a “Street Officer Resource Guide” (see Appendix) and a set of awareness videos to be played at roll calls. The Sex Trafficking Conference for Investigators was held in October 2014 in Brainerd, with more than 260 officers from across the state in attendance. Another 15 trainings intended to raise law enforcement awareness have been held so far, with an additional approximately 730 officers trained. More regional and tribal trainings, as well as final development and dissemination of the awareness videos and Street Officer Resource Guides, are planned for the coming months.  Training and support specifically for other justice professionals, including a statewide conference for county, tribal, and U.S. attorneys, co-sponsored by Minnesota County Attorneys Association (MCAA), among other trainings, as well as a separate set of awareness videos co-sponsored by the Vick Task Force. Several such trainings have been held, with more trainings – including the MCAA conference - and final development and dissemination of the awareness videos planned for the coming months. 3  Training for other systems professionals across multiple disciplines and other efforts to build a community response to trafficking, including a statewide Safe Harbor kickoff conference cosponsored by Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) and multiple regional conferences developed in collaboration with Advocates for Human Rights and co-sponsored by Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), among other trainings and presentations. The Safe Harbor kickoff conference was held in April 2014 in Alexandria, with more than 200 in attendance representing a wide variety of communities and disciplines. In addition to other training, the RCAO has presented at multidisciplinary gatherings – of law enforcement, human services workers, advocates, and others – in Isanti, Kandiyohi, and Sherburne Counties. Approximately 1,000 systems professionals other than law enforcement have received training. In the coming months, a series of regional conferences will be held throughout the state – starting in Duluth and Redwood Falls and moving to Willmar, Bemidji, and other communities.  Robust partnerships with a wide variety of organizations, including the Women’s Foundation of Minnesota, Thomson Reuters, and the many agencies identified in this list. In addition to contributions of staff time and other in-kind support, the RCAO has obtained outside contributions of $70,000 in direct support of this work. Of the $700,000 appropriated, the RCAO has spent approximately $230,000 to-date. 4