Online Sexual Exploitation of Children (OSEC)
Survivors’ Functioning After Reintegration in the Philippines
Behind the Screen: International Research Conference on Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (2022) Megan Scroger
School/Clinical Psy.D. Candidate
Roberts Wesleyan University
Agenda
• Background
• Research Problem
• Methodology
• Sample
• Methods for data collection
• Analysis procedures
• Research questions
• Preliminary Results
• Limitations
• Recommendations
• Questions and Feedback
BACKGROUND
KEY TERMS
• Online sexual exploitation of children (OSEC):
• the use of the internet to facilitate child sexual exploitation or abuse (International Justice Mission [IJM], 2020a)
• Psychosocial:
• describing the intersection and interaction of social, cultural, and environmental influences on the mind and behavior (American Psychological Association [APA], 2022)
• Reintegration:
• the process of moving from an environment or situation of exploitation to one where the child has the same opportunities as other children (IJM, 2020b)
RESEARCH PROBLEM
High global prevalence Vulnerabilities in the Philippines Gap in Literature
The primary purposes of the present study are to explore psychosocial outcomes for Filipino survivors or OSEC and identify factors related to functioning after experiencing OSEC.
(IJM, 2020a; Small & Pope, 2019; UNICEF, 2016; Wilkinson, 2021; WHI, 2019)
METHODOLOGY
Design and Sample
• An associational design using criterion sampling
• Inclusion criteria:
• Survivors of OSEC
• Received services through World Hope International and local partner residential shelters
• Between the ages of 12 and 18
• Reintegrated for at least one year
Newly collected data Psychological Trauma Assessment Questionnaire (PTAQ) Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Youth SelfReport (YSR) Archival data Intake Demographic Questionnaires
MEASURES
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The dataset did not meet the assumptions of normality required for parametric tests and the sample was small (N=48)
• A combination of continuous and categorical data required three types of analyses.
• Mann-Whitney U tests
• Kruskal Wallis tests
• Kendall’s tau correlational tests
•
(Mertens, 2020)
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What are the relationships between survivor symptoms and various demographic factors after experiencing OSEC and being reintegrated into the community for at least one year?
• Demographic variables:
• Age, gender, birth order, length of stay in shelter, number of people/children in the household, relationship to perpetrator, reintegration setting, parental marital status
• Survivor Symptoms:
• Psychological Trauma Assessment Questionnaire (PTAQ)
• Youth Self-Report (YSR)
• Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)
QUESTION #1
What is the relationship between survivors’ self-reported symptoms of trauma and psychosocial functioning?
• PTAQ and YSR
QUESTION #2
What is the relationship between survivors’ self-reported symptoms of trauma and caregivers’ reports of the survivors' psychosocial functioning?
• PTAQ and CBCL
QUESTION #3
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
QUESTION 1 RESULTS:
PTAQ AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Continuous demographic variable τb p value Interpretation Age .178 .11 No significant relationship Birth order .075 .50 No significant relationship Length of stay in shelter .057 .58 No significant relationship Number of children in the household .227 .03 There is a small, positive, relationship between the number of children in the household and trauma symptoms. Number of people in the household .109 .30 No significant relationship
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.):
Categorical demographic variable (2 levels) U p value Interpretation Gender male, female 270.5 .46 No significant difference Age younger (12-14 years old), older (15-18 years old) 359 .10 No significant difference Reintegration setting inside the home, outside the home 202.5 .48 No significant difference Relationship to perpetrator immediate family member, outside the immediate family 286.5 .82 No significant difference
PTAQ AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.): PTAQ AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Categorical demographic variable (>2 levels) H p value Interpretation Relationship to perpetrator immediate family member, relative, community perpetrator, self 2.06 .56 No significant difference Reintegration setting immediate family without perpetrator, immediate family with perpetrator, kinship care, foster care 1.63 .65 No significant difference Parental marital status married, separated, parent is deceased 4.60 .10 No significant difference Length of stay in shelter emergency, short-term, long-term 1.28 .53 No significant difference
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.):
YSR
Total Internalizing Externalizing Continuous demographic variable τb p value τb p value τb p value Interpretation Age .068 .53 . 068 .53 -.011 .92 No significant relationship Birth order .080 .47 .035 .75 .048 .67 No significant relationship Length of stay in shelter -.062 .55 -.056 .59 -.013 .90 No significant relationship Number of children in the household .265 .01 .196 .07 .213 .049
relationship between the number of children in
household and total and externalizing symptoms. Number of people in the household .146 .17 .078 .46 .155 .15 No significant relationship
AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
There is a small, positive,
the
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.): YSR AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Total Internalizing Externalizing Categorical demographic variable (2 levels) U p value U p value U p value Interpretation Gender male, female 298.5 .17 319 .07 243.5 .13 Marginally significant difference (males higher than females) Age younger (12-14 years old), older (15-18 years old) 308.5 .55 307 .57 300.5 .67 No significant difference Reintegration setting inside the home, outside the home 160.5 .69 158.5 .65 174 .96 No significant difference Relationship to perpetrator immediate family member, outside the immediate family 284.5 .85 281 .91 287 .81 No significant difference
QUESTION 1
Total Internalizing Externalizing Categorical demographic variable (>2 levels) H p value H p value H p value Interpretation Relationship to perpetrator immediate family member, relative, community perpetrator, self 1.49 .68 0.70 .87 2.71 .44 No significant difference Reintegration setting immediate family without perpetrator, immediate family with perpetrator, kinship care, foster care 3.90 .27 5.22 .16 1.13 .77 No significant difference Parental marital status married, separated, parent is deceased 2.02 .36 1.68 .43 1.46 .48 No significant difference Length of stay in shelter emergency, short-term, long-term 1.98 .37 1.86 .39 1.48 .48 No significant difference
RESULTS (CONT.): YSR AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.):
There is a small to moderate, negative, relationship between survivors’ length of stay in shelter and total and internalizing symptoms, respectively.
There is a small, positive, relationship between number of people in the household and externalizing symptoms.
Total Internalizing Externalizing Continuous demographic variable τb p value τb p value τb p value Interpretation Age .096 .38 .139 .20 .020 .86 No significant relationships Birth order -.032 .78 -.090 .41 .017 .88 No significant relationships Length of stay in shelter -.211 .03 -.295 .004 -.036 .73
CBCL AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Number of children in the household .193 .30 .041 .70 .104 .34 No significant relationships Number of people in the household .198 .06 .107 .31 .211 .048
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.): CBCL AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Total Internalizing Externalizing Categorical demographic variable (2 levels) U p value U p value U p value Interpretation Gender male, female 310 .10 270.5 .46 318.5 .07 Marginally significant difference (males higher than females) Age younger (12-14 years old), older (15-18 years old) 298.5 .39 326 .34 279.5 .99 No significant difference Reintegration setting inside the home, outside the home 251.5 .04 231.5 .14 299.5 .001
the
Relationship to perpetrator immediate family member, outside the immediate family 329 .26 366.5 .06 272 .94 Marginally significant difference (inside immediate family lower than outside)
Survivors reintegrated outside of the home had higher reports of total and externalizing symptoms relative to survivors reintegrated inside
home.
QUESTION 1 RESULTS (CONT.): CBCL AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Survivors were reported to have higher total and internalizing symptoms if they trafficked themselves relative to being trafficked by a relative
Survivors were reported to have higher symptoms in all areas if they were reintegrated in kinship/foster care compared to with non-perpetrating family
Survivors were reported to have higher total and internalizing symptoms if they were in shelter 1 month or less, relative to those in shelter for 6 months or longer
Total Internalizing Externalizing Categorical demographic variable (>2 levels) H p value H p value H p value Interpretation (*According to caregiver report*) Relationship to perpetrator immediate family member, relative, community perpetrator, self 8.42 .04 11.80 .008 4.62 .22
Reintegration setting immediate family without perpetrator, immediate family with perpetrator, kinship care, foster care 7.78 .051 8.14 .04 14.85 .002
Parental marital status married, separated, parent is deceased 1.68 .43 1.63 .44 3.85 .15
Length of stay in shelter emergency, short-term, long-term 9.97 .007 11.06 .004 3.06 .22
No significant difference
There is a moderate, positive, relationship between survivors’ selfreport of symptoms of withdrawal/depression and trauma symptoms.
There is a moderate, positive, relationship between survivors’ report of somatic symptoms and trauma symptoms.
) YSR Scales/Subscales τb p value Interpretation Internalizing problems .223 .02 There is a small, positive, relationship between survivors’ report of internalizing symptoms and trauma symptoms. Anxious/depressed problems .179 .09 Marginally significant relationship Withdrawn/depressed problems .287 .006
QUESTION 2 RESULTS: YSR WITH TRAUMA SYMPTOMS ( PTAQ
Somatic problems .249 .02
QUESTION 2 RESULTS (CONT.):
YSR WITH TRAUMA SYMPTOMS ( PTAQ) YSR Scales τb p value Interpretation Total problems .200 .05 Marginally significant relationship Externalizing problems .117 .26 No significant relationship
CBCL Scales τb p value Interpretation Total problems .170 .10 No significant relationship Externalizing problems .145 .16 No significant relationship Internalizing problems .134 .19 No significant relationship
QUESTION 3 RESULTS: CBCL WITH TRAUMA SYMPTOMS ( PTAQ)
CONCLUSIONS
• OSEC as an emerging phenomenon
• Lack of peer-reviewed literature
• Lack of consistent language describing childhood sexual abuse facilitated via the Internet
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
• Sample size
• Use of archival data
• Covid-19 as a barrier
• Exposure to trauma throughout the study
• Covid-19
• Typhoon in December 2021
RECOMMENDATIONS
Promote awareness of trauma and Internet safety for youth
Provide prevention services for families that may be more at-risk to engage in OSEC
Streamline methods of assessment upon intake and discharge at shelters in the Philippines
Ongoing research with this population to identify risk factors, psychosocial impacts, and better understand the impacts of institutionalization during residential care
QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK
THANK YOU!
REFERENCES
• American Psychological Association (2022). American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/
• International Justice Mission (2020a). Online sexual exploitation of children in the Philippines: Analysis and recommendations for governments, industry, and civil society. IJM USA.
https://ijmstoragelive.blob.core.windows.net/ijmna/documents/studies/Final-Public-Full-Report-5_20_2020_2021-02-05055439.pdf?mtime=20210204215439&focal=none
• International Justice Mission. (2020b). A study online sexual exploitation of children for aftercare reintegration. IJM USA. https://osec.ijm.org/documents/19/IJM-Aftercare-Reintegration_research-2021.pdf
• Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
• Small, M., & Pope, J. (2019). Online sexual exploitation of children. Kontakt, 21(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.32725/kont.2019.019
• UNICEF Philippines (2020). National Study on Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children in the Philippines.
• Wilkinson, D. (2021). Psychosocial impacts of child sexual abuse and their similarity to online sexual exploitation of children: A literature review. International Justice Mission, Manilla. Retrieved from https://osec.ijm.org/documents/18/IJM-AftercarePsychosocial_impacts_of_CSA_and_their_similarity_to_OSEC-2021.pdf
• World Hope International. (2019, November 15). OSEC/PAVE. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.worldhope.org/project/osec-pave/
