HUMAN 

TRAFFICKING 

State Has Made 

Improvements in Its 

Annual Report but 

Does Not Explicitly

Explain Certain Tier 

Rankings or Changes

Report to Congressional Addressees

December 2016

GAO-17-56

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-56, a report to 

congressional addressees

December 2016

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

State Has Made Improvements in Its Annual 

Report but Does Not Explicitly Explain Certain 

Tier Rankings or Changes

What GAO Found

The Department of State’s (State) Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in 

Persons (Trafficking Office) compiles information on countries’ actions to combat

human trafficking and recommends tier rankings for the Trafficking in Persons 

Report but did not post information on waivers within mandated timeframes. The 

figure below shows the percentage of countries by tier in the 2015 and 2016 

reports. Disagreements about tier rankings between the Trafficking Office and 

other parts of State, which have different priorities, are usually resolved at the 

working level, according to officials, with only a few elevated to the Secretary of 

State for resolution. The Secretary of State determines all final tier rankings. The 

Trafficking Office recommends whether to grant waivers for countries that 

otherwise would be automatically downgraded to the lowest tier. The Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act (TVPA) requires State to post a detailed description of the 

credible evidence used to support these waivers on its website annually, but

State did not do so for the 2014 through 2016 reports until September 2016. 

Figure: Percentage of Countries by Tier in 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons Reports

State has made improvements to the Trafficking in Persons Report since 2006 

but does not explicitly explain the basis for certain countries’ tier rankings or, 

where relevant, why countries’ tier rankings changed. GAO’s analysis of the 

2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that, compared with GAO’s previous 

report in 2006, there were fewer instances in which minimum standards and 

criteria were not mentioned in the narratives. However, most narratives for the 

highest-ranked, or Tier 1, countries in the 2015 and 2016 reports did not 

explicitly explain the basis for the tier rankings. The narratives sometimes 

included language that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria. In 

addition, GAO found that, for countries that changed tier from one year to the 

next, most narratives did not provide an explicit explanation as to why the

rankings changed. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

states that information should be communicated in a way that is useful to internal 

and external users. Lacking such clarity could diminish the report’s usefulness as 

a tool to advance efforts to combat trafficking.

State and other officials indicate that the Trafficking in Persons Report can be a 

useful tool to engage other countries about trafficking, but State has not 

systematically assessed the report’s effectiveness. As a result, the effect of the 

report in encouraging governments to make progress in combating trafficking is 

not well understood. However, State officials stated that they are working on 

efforts to assess the report’s effectiveness at achieving the goal of addressing

trafficking worldwide.

View GAO-17-56. For more information, 

contact Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, 

melitot@gao.gov

Why GAO Did This Study

Human traffickers exploit men, women, 

and children for financial gain.

Congress enacted the TVPA in 2000, 

which requires the Secretary of State

to report annually on governments’ 

efforts according to the act’s minimum 

standards for the elimination of 

trafficking. Each year since 2001, State 

has published the Trafficking in 

Persons Report, ranking countries into 

one of four tiers. GAO found in 2006 

that the report did not fully describe 

State’s assessment of compliance with 

standards or provide complete 

explanations for ranking decisions. 

The explanatory statement 

accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, included a 

provision for GAO to review the 

report’s preparation and effectiveness. 

This report addresses (1) the process 

to develop the report, (2) the extent to 

which country narratives discuss 

minimum standards, and (3) the extent 

to which State assesses the report’s 

effectiveness as a tool to address 

trafficking. GAO compared 220 country 

narratives in the 2015 and 2016 

reports with the minimum standards

and analyzed 82 narratives for 

countries that changed tier. GAO also 

interviewed State and other officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations 

to the Secretary of State to improve the 

clarity and usefulness of the Trafficking 

in Persons Report by posting evidence 

to support downgrade waivers on 

State’s website, improving 

explanations for tier rankings and 

changes, and assessing the 

effectiveness of the report as a tool to

address trafficking. State agreed with 

GAO’s recommendations. 
Page i GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Letter 1

Background 3

Trafficking Office Drafts Country Narratives and Works with 

Bureaus to Resolve Disagreements on Tier Rankings but Did 

Not Post Information about Waivers within the Required 

Deadline 9

State Has Made Improvements to the Trafficking in Persons 

Report but Does Not Explicitly Explain the Basis for Certain 

Countries’ Tier Rankings or Tier Changes 21

State and Other Officials Indicate that the Trafficking in Persons 

Report Is a Useful Tool in Engaging with Other Countries, but 

State Has Not Systematically Assessed Its Effectiveness 33

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments 39

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II Minimum Standards and Criteria for the Elimination of Trafficking in 

Persons 46

Appendix III Tier Ranking by Country in 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report 48

Appendix IV Law Enforcement Data in the State Department’s Trafficking in 

Persons Report 50

Appendix V Comments from the Department of State 52

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Tables

Table 1: Tier 1 48

Table 2: Tier 2 48

Table 3: Tier 2 Watch List 49

Table 4: Tier 3 49

Table 5: Special Cases 49

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Countries by Tier in the Department of 

State’s 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons Reports 6

Figure 2: Tier Ranking by Country in the Department of State’s 

2016 Trafficking in Persons Report 7

Figure 3: Process for Gathering Information and Drafting, 

Clearing, and Issuing the Trafficking in Persons Report 11

Figure 4: Elements of the Department of State’s Trafficking in 

Persons Report 15

Figure 5: Number of Countries Upgraded or Downgraded in Their 

Tier Ranking in the Department of State’s 2015 and 2016 

Trafficking in Persons Reports 31
Page iii GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

NGO nongovernmental organization

State Department of State

Trafficking Office Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in 

 Persons

Treasury Department of the Treasury

TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act, as amended

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 5, 2016

Congressional Addressees

Human traffickers around the world exploit men, women, and children for 

financial gain. Trafficking victims are forced to work in illegal professions, 

such as the commercial sex trade, as well as in labor environments such 

as garment factories, fishing boats, agricultural settings, and domestic 

service. In addition to inflicting grave personal damage upon its victims, 

trafficking undermines government authority, fuels organized criminal 

groups and gangs, and imposes social and public health costs. In 2000, 

Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to 

combat trafficking in persons.1 Congress reauthorized this act four times, 

most recently in 2013.2 This act, as amended, requires, among other 

things, that the Secretary of State report to Congress annually on foreign 

governments’ antitrafficking efforts according to the act’s minimum 

standards for the elimination of trafficking.3 By statute, the report should 

include lists of those countries arranged by the range of their 

governments’ compliance with the U.S. minimum standards.4 We found in 

July 2006 that the explanations for country ranking decisions in the 

Trafficking in Persons Report were incomplete and that the report did not 

comprehensively describe compliance with the minimum standards to 

combat trafficking.5

 1Enacted as Division A of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. 

Pub. L. No. 106-386, Div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-91.

2Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-193, 117 

Stat. 2875; Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-

164, 119 Stat. 3558 (Jan. 10, 2006); William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044; Violence Against 

Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-4, Title XII, 127 Stat. 54,136-160. 

322 U.S.C. § 7107(b). 

422 U.S.C. § 7107(b). The TVPA, as amended, states that the report should include lists 

of countries whose governments (1) fully comply with the minimum standards, (2) do not 

yet fully comply with the minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring 

themselves into compliance, and (3) do not fully comply with such standards and are not 

making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance. The Department of State

(State) is also required to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a list of 

countries on a special watch list. State’s reporting refers to these lists as “tier rankings.” 

5GAO, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. 

Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad, GAO-06-825 (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2006).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014,6 includes a provision for GAO to assess the 

methodology used in the preparation of the Department of State’s (State) 

annual Trafficking in Persons Report and the effectiveness of this report 

as a tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking. This report 

addresses (1) the process State uses to prepare country narratives and 

decide tier rankings in the Trafficking in Persons Report, (2) the extent to 

which country narratives in the Trafficking in Persons Report clearly 

discuss the minimum standards to combat trafficking as enumerated in 

the TVPA and interpreted by State, and (3) the extent to which State 

assesses the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report as a 

diplomatic tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and State 

documents and interviewed State, other agency, and nongovernmental 

organization (NGO) officials with input into the process.7 We reviewed 

185 country narratives in the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report, as well 

as 35 country narratives in the 2016 report for countries with the highest 

ranking.8 We systematically compared the country narratives with the 

minimum standards (as interpreted and applied by State) and determined 

whether the narratives clearly explained State’s assessment regarding 

governments’ compliance with them. We did not assess whether State 

had placed countries in the appropriate tier. Each country narrative was 

assessed independently by two analysts, using a detailed rules document 

developed using State’s guidelines and through discussions with State. 

We also analyzed the narratives for the countries that changed tiers in the 

2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons reports to assess whether the 

narratives clearly explain why State decided to change a country’s tier 

 6Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5 (see 113th Congress, 2nd Sess. Congressional Record, 

vol. 160, No. 9 – daily edition, pp. H475-H1215 for the explanatory statement).

Subsequently, 2 Senate co-requesters signed on as sponsors for our review and are 

addressees of this report.

7We interviewed officials from the Departments of Defense (DOD) and the Treasury, and 

the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID), as well as officials from NGOs 

focused on trafficking in persons.

8Although the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report includes 188 country narratives, we 

reviewed 185. We excluded the narratives for Aruba and St. Maarten that are territories or 

autonomous entities of other countries because, according to the report, they are not 

“countries” to which the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in the TVPA 

apply. We also excluded the narrative for Somalia, which, as a special case in the report, 

discusses the government’s efforts to address trafficking but does not provide a tier 

ranking for the country.
Page 3 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

ranking. Appendix I provides more information about our scope and 

methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Human traffickers exploit individuals, and human trafficking often involves 

transnational criminal organizations, violations of labor and immigration 

codes, and government corruption. Many forms of trafficking—including 

sex trafficking and labor trafficking—can take place anywhere in the world 

and can occur without crossing country boundaries. As discussed in the 

Trafficking in Persons Report, trafficking victims include Asian and African 

women and men who migrate to the Persian Gulf region for domestic 

labor but then suffer both labor trafficking and sexual abuse in the homes 

of their employers. Some victims are children; for example, Pakistani 

children as young as 5 are sold or kidnapped into forced labor to work in 

brick kilns, some of which are owned by government officials. Other 

victims are subjected to sexual exploitation; in some cases, women and 

girls have been bought and sold as sex slaves by members of the Islamic 

State; in others, adult men and women are forced to engage in 

commercial sex, and children are induced to do the same. Individuals, 

including men, are exploited in forced labor in a variety of sectors; 

Burmese men, for example, have been subjected to forced labor 20 hours 

a day, 7 days a week on fishing boats in Thailand.

Reliable data on the scope of trafficking are limited due to a number of 

factors.9 Trafficking is a clandestine activity, which limits the data 

available on victims. Victims may live daily under inhumane treatment, 

physical and mental abuse, and threats to themselves or their families. 

Because of their vulnerable position, trafficking victims may be unwilling 

or unable to report to, or seek help from, relevant authorities. They may 

distrust the government and police because they are afraid of being 

deported or because they come from countries where law enforcement is 

 9See GAO-06-825.

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

corrupt and feared, or their traffickers made such threats to discourage 

their reporting to law enforcement. Further, some governments do not 

systematically collect data on victims or do not recognize some types of 

trafficking, such as forced labor or the trafficking of men.

In 2000, Congress enacted the TVPA and reauthorized it four times, most 

recently in 2013.10 The act, as amended, defines severe forms of 

trafficking in persons as (1) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act 

is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to 

perform such act is under age 18; or (2) the recruitment, harboring, 

transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, 

through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, for the purpose of subjection 

to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.11 The TVPA 

does not specify movement across international boundaries as a 

condition of trafficking nor does it require the transportation of victims 

from one locale to another. According to State officials, the TVPA 

definition of trafficking is largely consistent with the definition set forth in 

the UN Protocol on trafficking in persons.

The TVPA, as amended, provides a framework for current U.S. 

antitrafficking efforts, including the criteria for the Trafficking in Persons 

Report. According to State officials, it is also consistent with the UN 

Protocol on trafficking in persons in approaching this crime within a 

framework known as the “three p’s”: prosecution, protection and 

prevention. These include the prosecution and punishment of traffickers, 

the protection of and assistance for victims of trafficking, and the 

prevention of trafficking. The TVPA, as amended, also laid out minimum 

standards for eliminating trafficking to be used in the Secretary of State’s 

annual assessment of foreign governments’ antitrafficking efforts (see 

app. II).12 The first three standards deal with countries’ efforts to enact 

laws to prohibit severe forms of trafficking and prescribe penalties for 

trafficking. The fourth standard, as detailed by State, relates to 

government efforts to implement those laws and includes 12 criteria that 

 10The United States is also a signatory to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, 

Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, 

Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, 

G.A. res. 55/25, annex II, 55 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 60, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (Vol. I) 

(2001), which entered into force on December 25, 2003. The United States ratified the 

protocol (also known as the Palermo Protocol) on December 3, 2005. 

1122 U.S.C. § 7102.

1222 U.S.C. § 7106.
Page 5 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

can be used to assess these efforts.13 For example, criteria for the fourth 

minimum standard include whether a country’s government has achieved 

appreciable progress in eliminating trafficking—including prosecuting 

traffickers, protecting victims, and preventing trafficking—compared to 

efforts from the previous year and whether a country’s government has 

taken steps to protect and provide assistance, such as counseling and 

shelter, to victims.

The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking 

Office) was established in accordance with the TVPA of 2000. The office 

is headed by an ambassador-at-large and is organized into four sections: 

Reports and Political Affairs, International Programs, Public Engagement, 

and Resource Management and Planning. The Reports and Political 

Affairs section prepares the congressionally mandated Trafficking in 

Persons Report annually. Other parts of State, including regional 

bureaus, which cover geographic regions, and functional bureaus, which 

cover global issues such as refugees and human rights, also have input 

into the report.

The report ranks countries into one of four categories, or tiers, based on 

the Secretary of State’s assessment of foreign governments’ compliance 

with the four minimum standards for eliminating human trafficking. See 

figure 1 for the number of countries in each tier in 2015 and 2016. As 

reported by State, the definitions of the four tiers are as follows:

• Tier 1: countries whose governments fully meet the minimum 

standards.

• Tier 2: countries whose governments do not fully meet the minimum 

standards but are making significant efforts to do so.14

• Tier 2 Watch List: countries whose governments do not fully meet the 

minimum standards but are making significant efforts to do so and

• have a very significant or increasing number of victims,

 13According to Trafficking Office officials, a particular criterion within minimum standard 4 

does not necessarily determine whether the government has met that standard. Rather, 

each criterion is one of the factors State weighs to assess the government’s efforts.

14The TVPA lists additional factors to consider in determining whether the government of 

a country is making significant efforts, including reasonable measures that the government 

would need to undertake to be in compliance with the minimum standards in light of the 

government’s resources and capabilities to address and eliminate severe forms of 

trafficking in persons.
Page 6 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

• fail to show increasing efforts to combat trafficking from the 

previous year, or

• have been assessed as making significant efforts to comply based 

on commitments to take steps over the next year.

• Tier 3: countries whose governments do not meet the minimum 

standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.

Figure 1: Percentage of Countries by Tier in the Department of State’s 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons Reports

a

In addition to the 185 countries, the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report also included tw o 

territories—Aruba and St. Maarten—and one special case—Somalia. For special cases, the report 

discusses a country’s government’s efforts to address trafficking but does not provide a tier ranking 

for the country.

b

In addition to the 183 countries, the 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report included two territories—

Aruba and St. Maarten. It also included three special cases—Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. Libya and 

Yemen w ere on Tier 3 in 2015. For special cases, the report discusses a country’s government’s 

efforts to address trafficking but does not provide a tier ranking for the country.
Page 7 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Figure 2 shows tier ranking by country. Appendix III lists each country by 

tier.

Figure 2: Tier Ranking by Country in the Department of State’s 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report

Note: For special cases, the Trafficking in Persons Report discusses a country’s government’s efforts 

to address trafficking but does not provide a tier ranking for the country.

In addition, under a 2008 amendment to the TVPA, any country that has 

been included on the Tier 2 Watch List for 2 consecutive years and that 

would otherwise be ranked on the Tier 2 Watch List for the next year will 
Page 8 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

be included in Tier 3 in the third year.15 The Secretary of State is 

authorized to waive the automatic downgrade if the Secretary determines 

that a government has devoted sufficient resources (such as funding, 

staffing, or in-kind or other resources) to a written plan that, if 

implemented, would constitute making significant efforts to meet the 

minimum standards and reports credible evidence of such to specified 

congressional committees.16 Countries may receive such a waiver for two

consecutive years, after which time a country must either go up to Tier 2 

or down to Tier 3.

The TVPA, as amended, also established funding restrictions, such as 

withholding nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related assistance, that could be 

applied against governments that are not in compliance with the minimum 

standards and not making significant efforts to come into compliance (i.e., 

countries in Tier 3).17 Types of assistance that can be withheld include 

support to a country’s military. Those funding restrictions may be waived 

by the President if the provision of assistance would promote the 

purposes of the TVPA, or is otherwise in the U.S. national interest.

 15Although the TVPA, as amended, does not use the term “tiers” to refer to the different 

lists of countries, State uses the term in its reporting, and we adopt the same convention 

in this report. See also Pub. L. No. 110-457, § 107 (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 

7107(b)(2)(D)). 

1622 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(2)(D). This waiver authority was granted to the President and then 

delegated to the Secretary of State. Delegation of Waiver Authority Pursuant to Section 

107(a) of Public Law 110-457, 75 Fed. Reg, 67,023 (Nov. 1, 2010).

17Additional restrictions can include instructing the U.S.Executive Director of each 

multilateral development bank and of the International Monetary Fund to vote against, and 

to use the Executive Director’s best efforts to deny, any loan or other utilization of the 

funds of the respective institution to that country, with certain exceptions. Moreover, in the 

case of a country whose government received no nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related 

foreign assistance during the previous fiscal year, the U.S. will not provide such 

assistance to the government of the country for the subsequent fiscal year and will not 

provide funding for participation by officials or employees of such governments in 

educational and cultural exchange programs for the subsequent fiscal year. See 22 U.S.C. 

§ 7107(d) for a full explanation of the restrictions.
Page 9 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

The Trafficking Office drafts the Trafficking in Persons Report based on 

information it receives from a variety of sources including U.S. missions, 

NGOs, and foreign governments. In 2014, after the most recent TVPA 

reauthorization, State officials noted that they revised State’s guidance for 

drafting country narratives and its guidelines for implementing the TVPA 

minimum standards to help ensure consistent application of the standards 

across country narratives. The Trafficking Office also makes tier ranking 

recommendations for each country. The Trafficking Office stated that it 

reported to Congress in a timely manner all required information on 

countries that received waivers to avoid being downgraded to Tier 3, but it 

did not annually post this information to its website within the TVPA 

required deadline for the 2014, 2015, or 2016 reports.18 The information 

for all 3 years was posted in September 2016 despite the requirement to 

do so within 30 days of notifying Congress of these waivers. According to 

Trafficking Office officials, they resolve most tier ranking disagreements 

with regional bureaus, with relatively few elevated to the Secretary

without a consensus recommendation. In the final step of the process, the 

Trafficking Office facilitates communication between other State bureaus 

and other government agencies to decide whether to recommend that the 

President grant waivers for funding restrictions for countries in Tier 3.

 18This requirement was added to the TVPA in 2013 by the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013. See Pub. L. No. 113-4, Title XII, § 1205 (codified at 19 

U.S.C. § 7107(b)(2)(E)).

Trafficking Office 

Drafts Country 

Narratives and Works 

with Bureaus to 

Resolve 

Disagreements on 

Tier Rankings but Did 

Not Post Information 

about Waivers within 

the Required 

Deadline

Trafficking Office Drafts 

Narratives and Makes Tier 

Ranking 

Recommendations but Did 

Not Post Information on 

Downgrade Waivers on 

State’s Website within the 

Required Deadline
Page 10 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

The Trafficking Office produces initial drafts of the State Department’s 

annual Trafficking in Persons Report with input compiled from a variety of 

sources including U.S. missions, foreign governments, and NGOs.19

Those drafts are edited and refined with the direct involvement of the 

regional and functional bureaus. The reporting period covers actions that 

governments take from April 1 of one year through March 31 of the next 

year. See figure 3 for an overview of the reporting process from 

information gathering through issuance.

 19In contrast, other annual State Department reports, such as the International Religious 

Freedom Report and the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, are drafted by 

officers at the U.S. missions.

Trafficking Office Gathers 

Information and Has 

Developed Reporting 

Guidance
Page 11 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Figure 3: Process for Gathering Information and Drafting, Clearing, and Issuing the Trafficking in Persons Report

a

Regional bureaus cover specific geographic regions.

b

Contested tier ranking recommendations are review ed by analysts at the w orking level, and the 

remaining unresolved recommendations are elevated to the Trafficking Office Ambassador and 

Regional Assistant Secretaries.

According to State officials, Trafficking Office analysts gather information 

throughout the year from sources including foreign governments, U.S. 

missions overseas, other department offices and U.S. government
Page 12 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

agencies, NGOs, media reports, and research, as well as the analysts’

travel and consultations around the world. Officials noted that the 12 

analysts in the office were each responsible for 15 to 20 countries, 

grouped by geographic region, in the 2015 and 2016 reports. The 

Trafficking in Persons Report has narratives for 188 countries in the 2015 

report, including two territories and one special case.20 Trafficking Office 

officials stated that each analyst is responsible for maintaining expertise 

and gathering information for each country in his or her portfolio, which 

includes traveling to the countries to engage with U.S. mission staff, 

NGOs, and host government officials.

In November, the Trafficking Office sends a request for information to all 

diplomatic and consular posts and publishes a four-page notice in the 

Federal Register requesting information on the degree to which the 

United States and foreign governments meet the minimum standards for 

the elimination of trafficking in persons.21 In response to the request to the 

U.S. missions, the officials at the missions return a detailed submission 

on the trafficking situation in the host country and the government’s 

efforts to combat it, including updates from the previous year’s report and 

specific data sets requested by the Trafficking Office (see app. IV for 

more on the law enforcement data included in the report). Reporting 

officers are encouraged to draw on a variety of sources to obtain this 

information, including host government officials, NGOs, and international 

and multilateral organizations. NGOs noted that they also provide 

information directly to the Trafficking Office throughout the reporting 

period. Analysts in the Trafficking Office said that they compile the 

information for the U.S. narrative primarily from the U.S. Attorney 

General’s Annual Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. 

Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons, but also from 

other U.S. government agencies and NGOs. The information is due in 

mid-February, which is about 6 weeks before the end of the reporting 

period. Therefore, Trafficking Office analysts stated that they work to 

collect and update the information while they are still drafting country 

narratives to ensure that they have the latest and most accurate 

information.

 20In our analysis, we excluded the narratives for Aruba and St. Maarten that are territories 

of other countries,and Somalia, the special case.

21The information from the diplomatic and consular posts was due by mid-Februaryfor the 

2015 Trafficking in Persons Report; the Federal Register had a submission deadline of 

January 30, 2015.
Page 13 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

The Trafficking Office provides State’s implementation guidelines for

State staff, including human trafficking reporting officers at the U.S. 

missions, during information sessions and on State’s internal website. 

These guidelines detail State’s implementation of the TVPA’s reporting 

requirement, and include the definition of severe forms of trafficking in 

persons, the standards from the TVPA and how to implement them, the 

roles of the reporting officers, and the elements of the reporting process. 

The guidelines include descriptions of the actions a government should 

take to meet the various standards and applicable criteria. For example, 

to determine whether a foreign government satisfies the minimum 

standard for prescribing punishment for traffickers that is sufficiently 

stringent, the guidance states that the country should include criminal 

penalties to include a maximum sentence of at least 4 years deprivation 

of liberty, or a more severe penalty.

The Trafficking Office also gives similar guidance to its analysts to use in 

preparing the Trafficking in Persons Report. The guidance establishes 

some standard language for the narratives in the report. The guidance 

includes standard language to indicate compliance or noncompliance with 

the first three minimum standards enumerated in the TVPA, which 

address laws to prohibit and punish trafficking in persons. For example, 

using the guidance, an analyst may write “Country X prohibits all forms of 

trafficking and prescribes penalties that are sufficiently stringent and 

commensurate with other serious crimes, such as rape.” The guidance 

also establishes standard language for certain criteria for the fourth 

minimum standard on governments’ efforts to implement its trafficking 

laws, such as training diplomatic personnel, addressing official complicity 

in participating in or facilitating trafficking, or not penalizing victims for 

acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked. For example, the 

standard language for official complicity, in cases where a government 

reported no efforts to combat official complicity in human trafficking and 

where no complicity is documented or known, is “The government did not 

report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government 

employees complicit in human trafficking offenses.” Additionally, the 

guidance document establishes standard language for some countries 

downgraded from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3; for example, “The 

government of X does not fully comply with the minimum standards for 

the elimination of trafficking. The government of X does not have a written 

plan; therefore, Country X is deemed not to be making significant efforts 

to comply with the minimum standards and is placed on Tier 3.”

In 2014, after the most recent TVPA reauthorization, State officials noted 

that they revised its guidance for drafting country narratives and its 
Page 14 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

guidelines for implementing the TVPA minimum standards to help ensure 

consistent application of the standards across country narratives.

The Trafficking Office writes the first drafts of the country narratives from 

mid-February through early April. The analysts use the information 

compiled all year from U.S. missions, NGOs, and foreign governments in 

combination with information obtained from travel, the media, and other 

sources to write the country narratives and assign recommended tier 

rankings. The rankings are based on the governments’ efforts against 

trafficking as measured against State’s implementation of the TVPA 

minimum standards, compared with the governments’ efforts in the 

preceding years, and not compared to the efforts of other countries.

The Trafficking in Persons Report narratives provide data and analytical 

assessments of the governments’ performance as related to the TVPA 

minimum standards as interpreted by State. The narratives follow a 

standard presentation and include the status of efforts to combat 

trafficking in the countries and recommendations for actions to improve 

these efforts. See figure 4 for a summary of the report elements.

Trafficking Office Drafts 

Narratives and Assigns Tiers 

but Did Not Publicize 

Information on Automatic 

Downgrade Waivers within 

Required Deadline
Page 15 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Figure 4: Elements of the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report

State officials told us that State does not use a formula to determine tier 

rankings; rather, it considers the totality of government efforts in the 

categories of prosecution, protection, and prevention. According to State 

officials, State generally gives more focus to prosecution and protection 
Page 16 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

than to prevention because of the TVPA’s structure. For example, State 

officials noted that the first three minimum standards as well as several 

criteria for minimum standard four are focused on prosecution.

As part of the tier ranking process, the Trafficking Office identifies 

countries that may require a waiver of a statutory automatic downgrade 

from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3 and that are potentially eligible to receive 

one. The Trafficking Office then leads an assessment of each country’s 

eligibility for such a waiver and coordinates State Department-wide 

recommendations for the Secretary’s consideration. Countries may 

remain on the Tier 2 Watch List for 2 years before being automatically 

downgraded to Tier 3. However, the TVPA, as amended, authorizes the 

President to waive a country’s automatic downgrade for up to 2 years, if, 

among other things, there is credible evidence that the country has a 

written plan to make significant efforts to meet the minimum standards 

and has devoted sufficient resources to the plan’s implementation.22 This 

authority has been delegated by the President to the Secretary of State. 23

The TVPA, as amended in 2013, requires State to provide a detailed 

description of the credible evidence supporting the determination to issue 

waivers of automatic downgrades for countries on the Tier 2 Watch List 

on its publicly available website within 30 days of the President notifying 

Congress of these waivers.24 While State officials said they did provide 

the required information to Congress in a timely manner, they did not post 

this information within the 30-day deadline for the 2014, 2015, or 2016 

reports. The information for all 3 years was posted in September 2016.25

As a result, this information regarding waiver decisions for the last several 

years was not available on State’s website, despite the requirement to 

post it within the specific deadline. In September 2016, the Trafficking 

Office provided an updated copy of its report preparation guidance which 

 2222 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(2)(D).

23Delegation of Waiver Authority Pursuant to Section 107(a) of Public Law 110-457, 75 

Fed. Reg. 67,023 (Nov. 1, 2010).

2422 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(2)(E). The State Department transmits a letter notifying Congress 

of these waivers along with the Trafficking in Persons Report, upon publication.

25Based on the 2014 report’s issuance date of June 20, 2014, the credible evidence for 

that year should have been posted by July 20 of the same year. Based on the 2015 

report’s issuance date of July 27, 2015, the credible evidence should have been posted by 

August 27, 2015. Based on the 2016 report’s issuance date of June 30, 2016, the credible 

evidence should have been posted by July 30, 2016.
Page 17 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

includes a new step to post the credible evidence information on its 

website in future years. State officials told us that this updated guidance 

is designed to ensure annual compliance with the TVPA requirement 

regarding public posting of information

The Trafficking Office produces initial drafts of the narratives in the report, 

then works to resolve any disagreements on the draft content and 

recommended tier rankings with the regional bureau and U.S. mission

staff.26 Once the Trafficking Office has completed the first drafts of each 

country narrative, it sends the draft to the relevant overseas mission and 

regional bureau for review and further inputs.27 According to the 

Trafficking Office, their analysts send out the draft narratives on a rolling 

basis as they are completed; this year, the earliest drafts went out in late 

February for initial factual review. Some of the regional bureaus we talked 

to received drafts for the 2016 report between mid-April and early May.

According to Trafficking Office officials, once the Trafficking Office and 

U.S. missions agree on the primary facts in the draft, the Trafficking 

Office formulates tier ranking recommendations. In the majority of cases, 

tier ranking recommendations are agreed upon early in the process at the 

working level. In other cases, several drafts are exchanged either due to 

significant gaps in data or because the characterization and weighing of 

data merit further discussion. When the regional bureaus and Trafficking 

Office disagree on the content of the narratives or the tier rankings, State 

officials explained that reconciliation involves several steps:

(1) The Trafficking Office attempts to resolve any disagreements

regarding the narratives and tier ranking recommendations at the 

working level, that is, between the Trafficking Office analyst and the 

contact at the U.S. mission and the regional bureau. According to

 26State officials noted that, along with the regional bureau and U.S. mission staff, many 

other parts of the department have the opportunity to weigh in, including the Office of the 

Legal Advisor; the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the Bureau of 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; the Bureau for Populations, Refugees, and 

Migration; the Office of Global Women’s Issues; the Office of the Under Secretary for 

Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights; the Office of the Under Secretary for 

Political Affairs; the Office of the Deputy Secretary; and the Office of the Deputy Secretary 

of State for Management and Resources.

27According to Trafficking Office officials, in some cases data are so scarce or unclear that 

a draft cannot be produced; instead, a series of questions is sent to the overseas mission 

for clarity.

Trafficking Office Resolves 

Most Tier Ranking 

Disagreements at the 

Working Level with 

Regional Bureaus 
Page 18 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

State officials, the majority of disagreements are resolved at the 

working level.

(2) Disagreements that cannot be resolved at the working level are 

discussed at a meeting chaired by Trafficking Office Ambassador and 

the designated regional bureau counterpart. In cases where they do 

not reach consensus on recommendations, additional fact-gathering 

or subsequent conversations are required, sometimes including 

higher-level senior officials.28

(3) All drafts and recommended tier rankings are sent to the Secretary, 

along with any remaining disagreements, for the Secretary’s final 

decision.

According to the TVPA, the Secretary is required to submit the Trafficking 

in Persons Report to the appropriate congressional committees. The 

Secretary has the sole authority to assign tier rankings. The Secretary’s 

decisions are informed by recommendations made by department staff. 

The Secretary makes the final decision on all tier rankings, including 

those that remain in disagreement. According to State officials, if the 

Secretary highlights a factual issue or thinks the narrative should be 

revised, State staff would respond accordingly. Regardless of the final tier 

ranking decision, Trafficking Office officials explained that it is the 

weighting of the facts, not the facts themselves, that is the determining 

factor in tier ranking decisions. Officials said that the Trafficking Office 

and regional bureaus might assess the facts differently because of 

differing priorities. For example, State officials said that the Trafficking 

Office is focused on trafficking issues in a country, while regional bureaus 

take a broader perspective that considers overall relations with countries.

Regional bureau officers said that consultations among stakeholders are 

part of the process to resolve disagreements about tier rankings. State 

officials explained that discussions about the facts and how they are 

weighed is an important part of the report drafting and tier ranking 

process. In some cases, the relatively short time the regional bureaus 

have from when they get the drafts to when they have the report 

consultations (around a week, in some cases) can make it difficult to 

 28According to Trafficking Office officials, in previous years, the Under Secretary for 

Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights chaired a second meeting, which was 

generally attended by the relevant regional bureau Assistant Secretary, in addition to the 

group present at the previous meeting. For the 2016 report, this step was removed to 

streamline the overall process and to bring the process into conformity with State’s 

handling of other major reports and policy decisions. 
Page 19 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

gather more information from regional bureaus and U.S. missions to 

make updates or corrections or to support resolution of tier ranking 

disagreements. According to State, late submission of information by 

governments or delays in providing edits on a draft can present similar 

challenges. However, one regional bureau official noted that the 

Trafficking Office generally sends the more controversial country 

narratives earlier, giving the bureau more time to review them. Regional 

bureau officials explained that they need time to update the information in 

the narratives between receiving the draft and starting the process to 

resolve tier ranking disagreements. Additionally, some bureau officials 

stated that they occasionally have received the tier ranking after they 

receive the draft, which leaves less time to gather the information needed 

from the U.S. missions and foreign governments to support a tier ranking 

disagreement.

In the final stage of the reporting process, State releases the Trafficking in 

Persons Report to Congress and the public. Before the public issuance of 

the report, State sends a notification to each U.S. mission in a country or 

territory in the report that includes the country narrative and tier ranking 

for release to the host government, accompanying notes of explanation 

for delivering the narrative and ranking to the host government, and an 

action plan containing recommended steps for making antitrafficking 

progress in the country or territory. The Trafficking Office drafts these 

action plans based on the recommendations in the country narratives, 

and clears the plans with the regional bureaus and U.S. missions. The 

plans are designed to guide the progress of the host governments’ 

antitrafficking efforts.

The Trafficking Office manages the process by which State and other 

relevant U.S. government agencies recommend which countries in Tier 3 

receive waivers of assistance restrictions. This process results in specific 

recommendations for the Secretary that inform their final 

recommendations to the President. The President has responsibility for 

making the final determinations. Pursuant to the TVPA, as amended, 

governments of countries in Tier 3 may be subject to certain funding 

restrictions, whereby the U.S. government may restrict nonhumanitarian, 

nontrade-related foreign assistance. In addition, countries whose 

governments received no nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign 

assistance from the United States during the previous fiscal year may be 

subject to restrictions on funding for government employees’ participation 

in educational and cultural exchange programs. Furthermore, consistent 

with the TVPA, as amended, the President will also instruct the U.S. 

The Trafficking Office 

Works with Other State 

Bureaus and Agencies to 

Decide on Waivers for 

Funding Restrictions
Page 20 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Executive Directors of each multilateral development bank and of the 

International Monetary Fund to vote against, and to use the Executive 

Director’s best efforts to deny, any loan or other utilization of the funds of 

the respective institution to that country, with certain exceptions.

Officials stated that the Trafficking Office leads the formal process of 

considering waivers on funding restrictions for countries in Tier 3 usually 

around the start of July, as soon as the Trafficking in Persons Report is 

publicly released. According to the TVPA, the determination about 

waivers for Tier 3 countries must be made not less than 45 days or more 

than 90 days of the Trafficking in Persons Report’s release.29

The Trafficking Office engages the regional and functional bureaus at 

State, as well as the Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), and the Department of the Treasury 

to provide recommendations on the types of assistance in a given country 

that could be subject to restriction and whether countries will get full, 

partial, or no waivers. The regional and functional bureaus may argue for 

funding restriction waivers for some Tier 3 countries for many reasons, 

such as the fact that some assistance supports human trafficking goals 

(e.g., funding for training prosecutors); regional or functional bureaus as 

well as other agencies may argue for waivers on the basis of larger 

issues that are in the national interest of the United States. State officials 

explained that they compile a package with the list of recommendations to 

provide full, partial, or no waivers of funding restrictions for countries in 

Tier 3, which includes information to support the recommendations, and 

sends this list to the other agencies for their input. According to DOD and 

USAID officials, the agencies review the recommendations, coordinate 

the input of the related agency offices and components affected, and 

respond to State as to whether they agree or disagree with the 

recommendations on waivers. The Trafficking Office incorporates input 

from other entities at State and the other relevant agencies into a memo 

to the Secretary of State with recommendations. The Secretary transmits 

recommendations to the President, who makes the final determinations 

on funding restrictions and waivers and submits the list to Congress.

In 2015, 21 of the 23 countries ranked as Tier 3 received a full or partial 

waiver. Thirteen were granted full waivers, and 8 were granted partial 

 29This timeframe also applies if State issues an interim report regarding countries on the 

Tier 2 Special Watch list. 
Page 21 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

waivers. For example, Thailand received a full waiver of the TVPA 

restriction on nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance. 

South Sudan received a partial waiver to allow for nonhumanitarian, 

nontrade related assistance otherwise restricted under the act, except for 

funding for foreign military sales, foreign military financing, and excess 

defense articles, which was restricted as a result of its placement in Tier 

3. North Korea and Iran were not granted any waivers on funding 

restrictions. However, the assistance the United States has provided to 

these governments, if any, would be limited, so little funding would be 

restricted as a result.

State has made improvements to the Trafficking in Persons Report but 

does not explicitly explain the basis for certain countries’ tier rankings or, 

where relevant, why countries’ tier rankings changed. Our analysis of the 

2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that, compared to our previous 

review in 2006, there were few instances in which minimum standards 

and criteria were not mentioned in the report country narratives. However, 

most narratives for the highest-ranked, or Tier 1, countries in the 2015 

and 2016 reports did not explicitly explain the basis for the tier ranking. 

The TVPA-mandated reports state that Tier 1 countries are those whose 

governments fully comply with the minimum standards to combat 

trafficking. Specifically, the Trafficking in Persons Report states that 

“while Tier 1 is the highest ranking, it does not mean that a country has 

no human trafficking problem or that it is doing enough to address the 

problem. Rather, a Tier 1 ranking indicates that a government has 

acknowledged the existence of human trafficking, has made efforts to 

address the problem, and meets the TVPA’s minimum standards.” 

Nonetheless, we found that the narratives sometimes included language 

that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria. These 

narratives also did not contain an explanation as to how the negative 

information provided fits into the country’s overall placement in Tier 1 in 

accordance with State’s reporting guidance. Moreover, the narratives also 

included ambiguous language, which made it unclear how State had 

determined whether certain standards and criteria were met. In addition, 

we found that, for countries that changed tier from one year to the next, 

most narratives did not provide an explicit explanation as to why State 

had decided to change those countries’ tier rankings. Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should 

State Has Made 

Improvements to the 

Trafficking in Persons 

Report but Does Not 

Explicitly Explain the 

Basis for Certain

Countries’ Tier 

Rankings or Tier 

Changes
Page 22 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

be communicated in a way that is useful to internal and external users.30

Without such clarity, the report’s usefulness could be diminished.

Our analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that State 

has made improvements to its annual report since our previous review in 

2006.31 In 2006, we reported that many country narratives in the 2005 

Trafficking in Persons Report did not mention compliance with certain 

minimum standards and criteria.32 In contrast, our analysis of the 2015 

Trafficking in Persons Report found considerably fewer instances in which 

standards and criteria were not mentioned in the country narratives:

• For example, in 2006 we reported that the narratives for 21 percent of 

the Tier 1 countries did not mention whether the governments 

complied with the second minimum standard, which, among other 

things, calls for governments to prescribe penalties for sex trafficking 

that are commensurate with those for grave crimes such as forcible 

sexual assault. In contrast, our analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in 

Persons Report found that all Tier 1 country narratives mentioned the 

second minimum standard.

• We also reported in 2006 that the narratives for 80 percent of the 

countries in the lowest two tiers (Tier 2 Watch List and Tier 3) failed to 

mention key aspects of the victim protection criterion for minimum 

standard four, including whether victims were encouraged to assist in 

the investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases, whether the 

government provided legal alternatives to removal to countries in 

which victims would face retribution or hardship, and whether victims 

were protected from being inappropriately penalized for unlawful acts 

committed as a direct result of being trafficked. In contrast, our 

analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that less than 

half (42 percent) of the Tier 2 Watch List and Tier 3 country narratives 

did not mention these aspects of the victim protection criterion.

 30GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).

31GAO-06-825.

32See appendix II for a list of the TVPA minimum standards and criteria.

State Has Made 

Improvements to the 

Trafficking in Persons 

Report Since 2006
Page 23 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

The Trafficking in Persons Report defines the three lowest tiers (Tier 2, 

Tier 2 Watch List, and Tier 3) as exhibiting varying degrees of 

noncompliance with the TVPA minimum standards. We found that Tier 3 

country narratives generally described decreasing or inadequate efforts. 

Furthermore, across the narratives for the countries in the lowest three 

tiers, we found that the groups of narratives in each tier contained 

progressively less negative information regarding governments’ actions 

moving from Tier 3 to Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 2. For example, criterion 

11 of minimum standard four concerns whether governments achieve 

appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking when 

compared to the assessment in the previous year.33 Trafficking Office 

analysts said that governments should show overall increasing efforts 

across the prosecution, protection, and prevention categories to meet this 

criterion, and that State’s assessment is captured in the first sentence of 

each category:

• Tier 3 country narratives generally described decreasing or 

inadequate efforts. Our analysis found that 20 (87 percent) of the 23 

Tier 3 country narratives described decreasing or inadequate efforts in 

one or more of the prosecution, protection, and prevention categories. 

In addition, only two country narratives described increasing efforts in 

any of the three categories. The Trafficking in Persons Report defines 

Tier 3 countries as those whose governments do not fully comply with 

the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to bring 

themselves into compliance with those standards.

• Tier 2 Watch List country narratives generally described decreasing, 

mixed, or sustained efforts. Our analysis found that 34 (77 percent) of 

the 44 Tier 2 Watch List country narratives described decreasing, 

mixed, or sustained efforts in one or more of the prosecution, 

protection, and prevention categories. Narrative reporting of mixed 

efforts included a combination of positive and negative findings, such 

as that the government had increased identification of victims but had 

provided victims inadequate assistance, or had made progress in law 

enforcement efforts but continued to lack trafficking convictions. The 

Trafficking in Persons Report defines Tier 2 Watch List countries as 

those whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum 

 33According to the Trafficking Office, whether a government meets a particular criterion 

within minimum standard four is not conclusive in determining whether the government 

has met that standard. Rather, it is one of the factors State weighs to assess the 

government’s efforts. See appendix II for a list of the TVPA minimum standards and 

criteria.

Report Narratives for 

Countries in Lowest Three 

Tiers Appear to Generally 

Support Countries’Tier 

Rankings
Page 24 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into 

compliance with those standards, and where there is a failure to 

provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat trafficking from the 

previous year, among other things.

• Tier 2 country narratives generally described increasing, mixed, or 

sustained efforts. Our analysis found that 77 (89 percent) of the 87 

Tier 2 country narratives described increasing, mixed, or sustained 

efforts in one or more of the prosecution, protection, or prevention 

categories. Furthermore, in contrast to the 87 percent of Tier 3 

country narratives that described decreasing or inadequate efforts in 

one or more of the three categories, less than half (36 percent) of Tier 

2 country narratives did. The Trafficking in Persons Report defines 

Tier 2 countries as those whose governments do not fully comply with 

the minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring 

themselves into compliance with those standards.

While our analysis of the narratives for the Tier 1 countries as a group 

continued the trend of showing increased improvement in governments’ 

actions as compared to the groups of narratives for the other tiers, the 

narratives for most Tier 1 countries in State’s 2015 and 2016 Trafficking 

in Persons reports did not explicitly explain the basis for the tier rankings. 

We did not assess whether State had placed countries in the appropriate 

tier; rather, we assessed the language State used in the country 

narratives. In implementing the TVPA, State ranks countries whose 

governments fully comply with the minimum standards as Tier 1; 

however, the report narratives sometimes included language that seemed 

contradictory to certain standards and criteria.34 The narratives also 

included ambiguous language, which meant that we were unable to

determine how State had determined whether certain standards and 

criteria were met.35 Specifically, our analysis found that 61 (92 percent) of 

 34As previously mentioned, the Trafficking in Persons Report states that “while Tier 1 is 

the highest ranking, it does not mean that a country has no human trafficking problem or 

that it is doing enough to address the problem. Rather, a Tier 1 ranking indicates that a 

government has acknowledged the existence of human trafficking, has made efforts to 

address the problem, and meets the TVPA’s minimum standards.” 

35Narratives at every level included language that seemed contradictory to certain 

standards or criteria, or ambiguous language, which resulted in our inability to determine 

how State had determined whether certain standards or criteria were met. We focus on 

Tier 1 countries because they are the only countries whose governments are found to 

comply with all the TVPA minimum standards. Thus, unclear language is more notable in 

these cases. 

Report Narratives in Most 

Cases Do Not Explicitly

Explain the Basis for the 

Tier Ranking of the 

Highest-Ranked Countries
Page 25 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

the 66 Tier 1 country narratives in the 2015 and 2016 reports included 

language that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria, 

ambiguous language that made it unclear as to how State had 

determined whether certain standards and criteria were met, or both. 

However, the narratives did not explain how the contradictory or 

ambiguous language provided fits into the country’s overall placement in 

Tier 1 in accordance with State’s reporting guidance.36 Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should 

be communicated in a form that is useful to internal and external users.37

Without clarity in country narratives regarding State’s assessments of 

governments’ compliance with the minimum standards to combat 

trafficking, particularly for Tier 1, which is described by the report as 

governments of countries that fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards 

for the elimination of trafficking, the report’s usefulness could be 

diminished.

Forty (61 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives in State’s 2015 and 

2016 Trafficking in Persons reports had at least one section that seemed 

inconsistent with State’s reporting guidance regarding narratives for 

countries with the highest ranking. Our analysis of the Tier 1 country 

narratives in the 2015 and 2016 reports found that the narratives for 3 (5 

percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives for that period included 

language that seemed contradictory to State’s interpretation of the first 

three minimum standards, which generally call for governments to prohibit 

severe forms of trafficking in persons and prescribe penalties that are 

sufficiently stringent and commensurate with those for grave crimes such 

as forcible sexual assault. Trafficking Office analysts said that, in drafting 

the narratives, the interpretation they use is that governments should 

prohibit all forms of trafficking and prescribe penalties that are sufficiently 

stringent38 and commensurate with those for other serious crimes, such 

 36Some country narratives included both language that seemed contradictory to certain 

standards and criteria, and ambiguous language that made it unclear as to how State had 

determined whether certain standards and criteria were met, without explaining how the 

contradictory or ambiguous language provided fits into the country’s overall placement in 

Tier 1. As a result, the total percentages across both categories will exceed 100 percent. 

37GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

38As discussed earlier in this report, to determine whether a foreign government meets the 

minimum standard for prescribing penalties for trafficking crimes that are sufficiently 

stringent, State guidelines state that the country should include criminal penalties to 

include a maximum sentence of at least 4 years deprivation of liberty, or a more severe 

penalty.

Over Half of Narratives 

Contained Language that 

Seemed Inconsistent with the 

Highest Ranking
Page 26 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

as rape,39 to meet these standards. For example, the narrative for New 

Zealand in the 2016 report noted that the government enacted a bill that 

substantially conforms the definition of trafficking with international law; 

however, the narrative also stated that the bill does not include a 

provision making the sex trafficking of a child a crime regardless of 

deception or coercion, which is, according to the narrative, inconsistent 

with international law. The narrative further noted that prescribed 

penalties are not sufficiently stringent because of the possibility that a fine 

can be imposed in lieu of imprisonment and that the penalty for sex 

trafficking is insufficient because it is not a penalty commensurate with 

that imposed for other serious crimes, such as rape. The narrative does 

not, however, contain an explanation as to how the negative information 

provided fits into the country’s overall placement in Tier 1.

Further, 39 (59 percent) of the 6640 Tier 1 country narratives in the 2015 

and 2016 reports included language that seemed contradictory to certain 

criteria State uses to assess whether governments are making serious 

and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking as called for 

by the fourth minimum standard.41 Criterion 11 of minimum standard four 

concerns whether governments achieve appreciable progress in 

eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the assessment 

in the previous year. Trafficking Office analysts said that governments 

should show overall increasing efforts across the prosecution, protection, 

and prevention categories to meet this criterion and that increasing efforts 

in each of these categories is not required. However, the narratives for 10 

(15 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives for that period reported 

that the governments made decreased, weakened, limited, or inadequate 

efforts in at least one of the prosecution, protection, and prevention 

categories. While increasing efforts in each of these categories is not 

 39To determine whether a foreign government meets the minimum standard for prescribing 

penalties for sex trafficking that are commensurate with those for grave crimes such as 

forcible sexual assault, State guidelines state that the prescribed penalties for sex 

trafficking crimes or trafficking involving rape, kidnapping, or death should be substantially 

similar to those involving rape, taking into account the full range of sentences available.

40These 39 country narratives include 2 of the 3 country narratives mentioned above that 

also include language that seemed contradictory to State’s interpretation of the first three 

minimum standards. 

41As discussed earlier in this report, there are 12 criteria that should be considered as 

indicia of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons 

for minimum standard four determinations. According to the Trafficking Office, it examines 

each criterion separately and its assessment of each individual criterion factors into its 

overall assessment of compliance with minimum standard four.
Page 27 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

required, this seems inconsistent with Trafficking Office guidelines and 

statements that indicate Tier 1 countries should show evidence of 

sustained progress in combating trafficking in persons. For example:

• The 2015 report narrative for Armenia noted that the government 

demonstrated decreased law enforcement efforts, as authorities 

reported fewer prosecutions and convictions.

• The narrative for Canada in the 2016 report stated that the 

government identified fewer trafficking victims than in previous years; 

the government did not provide adequate funding for specialized 

victim services; and the range, quality, and timely delivery of services 

varied across the provinces.42

The narratives also included language that seemed contradictory to 

State’s interpretation of minimum standard four criteria addressing 

training for diplomats, efforts to reduce demand, and efforts to protect 

victims from inappropriate penalization for unlawful acts committed as a 

direct result of being trafficked. As previously discussed, there are 12 

criteria that should be considered for minimum standard four 

determinations; the Trafficking Office examines each criterion separately, 

and its assessment of each individual criterion factors into its overall 

assessment of compliance with minimum standard four.43 Specifically, we 

found that, of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives:

• 10 narratives (15 percent) noted that the governments did not provide 

antitrafficking training or guidance for their diplomatic personnel 

(criterion 3);44

 42According to the Trafficking Office, victim identification data should indicate increasing 

efforts compared to the previous year. 

43According to the Trafficking Office, whether a government meets a particular criterion 

within minimum standard four is not conclusive in determining whether the government 

has meet that standard. Rather, it is one of the factors State weighs to assess the 

government’s efforts.

44For criterion 3, the TVPA speaks in terms of whether governments adopted measures to 

prevent trafficking, such as measures to ensure its nationals who are deployed abroad as 

part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission do not engage in or facilitate 

severe forms of trafficking or exploit victims of such trafficking. State’s interpretation of this 

measure is that to determine whether governments’ efforts have met this one measure,

governments must provide training for diplomats as well as any troops deployed abroad 

as part of international peacekeeping missions (as applicable).
Page 28 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

• 12 narratives (18 percent) noted that the governments did not make 

efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts or forced labor 

(criterion 12);45 and

• 15 narratives (23 percent) noted that the governments inappropriately 

penalized trafficking victims for unlawful acts committed as a direct 

result of being trafficked (criterion 2).

For example, the 2016 report narrative for Ireland stated that the 

government prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned Asian victims of 

forced labor in illegal cannabis production for crimes committed while 

subjected to trafficking, with 70 Asian nationals remaining in prison 

related to cannabis offenses, including 30 cases where the defendants 

were in pretrial detention.

However, the narratives did not explicitly explain how these deficiencies

fit into the country’s overall placement in Tier 1.

The 2015 and 2016 report country narratives included ambiguous 

language, making it difficult to determine how State had determined 

whether certain minimum standards and criteria were met, thus leaving 

State’s justification for a Tier 1 ranking unclear. We were unable to 

determine, judging from the narratives, State’s complete rationale for the 

placement of 45 (68 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 countries. Specifically, we 

found ambiguous language relating to the first minimum standard 

(addressing the prohibition and punishment of trafficking); the minimum 

standard four criterion on making appreciable progress; and the minimum 

standard four criterion on victim protection, as interpreted by State.46

• Prohibiting and punishing trafficking (minimum standard 1). Our 

analysis found that the narratives for 13 (20 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 

country narratives for 2015 and 2016 stated that the governments 

prohibit sex and labor trafficking, leaving it unclear how State 

considered information to determine whether the governments prohibit 

 45For criterion 12, the TVPA discusses serious and sustained efforts in reducing the 

demand only for commercial sex acts and participation in international sex tourism; State’s 

interpretation of the criterion also includes forced labor.

46For some country narratives, we found ambiguous language relating to more than one of 

the standards or criteria. As such, the total percentages across the standards and criteria 

will be greater than 100 percent. 

Narratives Included Ambiguous 

Language, Making It Unclear 

How State Determined whether 

Certain Standards and Criteria 

Were Met
Page 29 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

all forms of trafficking.47 According to Trafficking Office analysts, Tier 

1 countries must criminalize all forms of trafficking. The 2015 and 

2016 reports include the following categories of trafficking: sex 

trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor, bonded labor or debt

bondage, domestic servitude, forced child labor, and unlawful 

recruitment and use of child soldiers. The narratives for most Tier 1 

countries explicitly stated that the governments prohibit all forms of 

trafficking. For those narratives that did not explicitly state that the 

governments prohibit all forms of trafficking, Trafficking Office analysts 

acknowledged that there could be gaps in the countries’ laws, which 

should be explained in the narratives, or that inconsistent language 

might have been used across country narratives.

• Making appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking 

when compared to the previous year’s assessment (minimum 

standard 4, criterion 11). Our analysis of the 2015 and 2016 reports 

found that the narratives for 16 (24 percent) of the Tier 1 country 

narratives for that period did not contain clear language describing 

appreciable progress for any of the prosecution, protection, and 

prevention categories. For each category, the narratives described 

mixed efforts; stated that the governments made “modest efforts”; or 

stated that the governments “sustained,” “maintained,” or “continued”

their efforts without defining those words or stating whether the 

country made progress. For example, the narrative for Israel in the 

2015 report cited a mix of positive and negative findings for the 

prosecution and protection categories and “continued” efforts for the 

prevention category. For prosecution, the narrative noted that the 

government made strong law enforcement efforts but also gave 

inadequate sentences to convicted offenders. For protection, it stated 

that the government improved its efforts to identify and protect 

trafficking victims but also stated that unidentified victims among the 

African migrant population remained vulnerable to the government’s 

policy of detaining migrants. The narrative cited “continued”

government efforts for the prevention category without explaining 

whether those efforts demonstrated progress when compared with the 

previous year.

• Protecting victims of trafficking (minimum standard 4, criterion 2). Our 

analysis found that the narratives for 34 (52 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 

country narratives for 2015 and 2016 were unclear regarding how 

 47As previously mentioned, the Trafficking in Persons Report states that a Tier 1 ranking 

does not mean that a country has no human trafficking problem or that it is doing enough 

to address the problem.
Page 30 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

State considered information to determine whether governments met 

the overall victim protection requirement. State Trafficking Office 

analysts said that State defines victim protection as (1) the 

identification of victims, (2) the existence of systems to refer victims to 

care, and (3) the provision of victim assistance (e.g., services, 

shelter). However, the narratives did not clearly explain government 

compliance with this criterion for most Tier 1 countries in the 2015 and 

2016 reports. For example, the 2015 report narrative for the United 

States stated that some trafficking victims, including those under 18 

years of age, were detained or prosecuted for conduct committed as a 

direct result of being subjected to trafficking. The narrative also stated 

that NGOs reported that many state and local authorities failed to treat 

sex-trafficked children as victims of trafficking by arresting and 

incarcerating them, including states with “safe harbor” laws designed 

to protect children from criminalization. However, it also noted that to 

address these challenges, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services facilitated training with advocates, attorneys, and service 

providers across the United States to increase identification of child 

trafficking victims.

Our analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons reports showed 

that most country narratives did not provide an explicit explanation as to 

why countries were upgraded or downgraded in their tier ranking from 

one year to the next. Although each narrative includes a trend line that 

shows a country’s tier ranking from one year to the next, the narratives do 

not explicitly explain why a country’s tier ranking changed. Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should 

be communicated in a form that is useful to internal and external users.48

The lack of an explicit explanation for most of State’s decisions to 

upgrade or downgrade countries to a different tier could limit the ability of 

internal and external stakeholders to understand the justification for tier 

changes and, in turn, use the report as a diplomatic tool to advance 

efforts to combat trafficking. Further, understanding tier ranking changes 

is viewed as complicated, according to some State officials, by the

challenges in determining whether a government’s efforts are significant

according to the minimum standards when several indicators may point in 

different directions. The tier ranking for a total of 82 countries was 

changed in the 2015 and 2016 reports: 37 were upgraded, and 45 were 

downgraded (see fig. 5).

 48GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

Most ReportNarratives Do 

Not Provide Explicit

Explanations as to Why 

Countries Changed Tier 

Ranking
Page 31 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Figure 5: Number of Countries Upgraded or Downgraded in Their Tier Ranking in the Department of State’s 2015 and 2016 

Trafficking in Persons Reports

Note: In addition to the six countries upgraded to Tier 1 in 2016, one territory–St. Maarten–was also 

upgraded. Furthermore, tw o countries–Libya and Yemen–that w ere in Tier 3 in 2015 w ere moved to 

the special case category in 2016. For special cases, the Trafficking in Persons Report discusses a 

country’s government’s efforts to address trafficking but does not provide a tier ranking for the 

country.
Page 32 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Our analysis showed that, of the 82 countries upgraded or downgraded in 

2015 or 2016, 7 (9 percent) of the country narratives explicitly explained 

why the country’s tier ranking changed; however, none of the remaining 

75 country narratives explicitly explained why the country’s tier ranking 

changed. According to Trafficking Office guidance and analysts, State’s 

justification for a country’s tier ranking is captured in the summary 

paragraph of the country narrative. The analysts also noted that the 

government does not need to show progress or lack of progress in all 

three categories (prosecution, protection, and prevention) for a tier 

change; in some cases, positive or negative movement in one category is 

sufficient for a tier upgrade or downgrade. We examined the summary 

paragraphs to determine whether they provided clear explanations as to 

why countries were upgraded or downgraded in their tier ranking. The 

only country narratives with an explicit explanation were for those 

countries subject to the TVPA automatic downgrade provision. As 

discussed earlier in this report, the TVPA, as amended, requires that 

countries be automatically downgraded to Tier 3 after 2 consecutive years 

on Tier 2 Watch List unless the country is granted a waiver based on 

credible evidence that a waiver is justified because the government has a 

written plan that, if implemented, would constitute making significant 

efforts to comply with the TVPA minimum standards and is devoting 

sufficient resources to implement the plan. The waiver can be issued for 2 

consecutive years, bringing the total length of time a country can remain 

on Tier 2 Watch List to 4 consecutive years. The narratives with explicit

explanations cited this 4-year time limit, or a waiver no longer being 

available, or the lack of a written plan, as the reason for downgrading a 

country from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3.

For those country narratives (75 of 82) that lacked an explicit explanation, 

we examined the summary paragraphs and the first sentence of each of 

the prosecution, protection, and prevention sections in the narratives to

see if there was any discernible information that may explain the tier 

change. The narratives provided no direct linkage between the tier 

change and the information cited in the summary paragraphs and 

opening sentences. Trafficking Office analysts noted that they had not 

made a deliberate decision to exclude an explanation as to why a country 

changed tier but that this information can be inferred from the summary 

paragraphs.

We found that 2 of these 75 country narratives provided no discernible 

explanation for the tier change. The narratives described mixed efforts, or 

included other ambiguous or contradictory language. Seventy-three 

country narratives provided some information that could help explain 
Page 33 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

State’s decision to change the tier; however, no direct linkage was made 

between such information and the tier change. Specifically, some 

narratives provided an overarching statement summarizing State’s 

determination regarding the country’s progress or lack of progress against 

trafficking. For example, the 2015 summary paragraph for Kenya (which 

was upgraded to Tier 2) stated that the government had made robust 

efforts to implement the Counter-Trafficking in Persons Act for the first 

time since it came into effect in 2012. Other narratives provided some 

information for at least one of the three categories (prosecution, 

protection, and prevention) that could help explain State’s decision to 

change the tier. For example, the most commonly cited negative finding 

for countries that were downgraded was that the government did not 

prosecute or convict any traffickers during the reporting period or that 

such law enforcement efforts had decreased when compared with the 

previous reporting period. However, the narratives did not directly explain 

that such information was a reason for the change in tier.

Based on our discussions with selected officials from State, other 

agencies, and NGOs, the Trafficking in Persons Report has raised 

awareness about trafficking and that countries’ concerns about their tier 

ranking can spur them to make progress. However, the report can also 

complicate bilateral efforts. Further, the U.S. government has waived Tier 

3 funding restrictions, potentially reducing the reports’ impact. Finally, 

State officials said they do not yet systematically assess the effectiveness 

of the Trafficking in Persons Report as a tool to encourage countries to 

combat human trafficking but plan to do so. Without such an assessment, 

the effect of the report in encouraging governments to make progress 

against trafficking is not well understood.

State and Other 

Officials Indicate that 

the Trafficking in 

Persons Report Is a 

Useful Tool in 

Engaging with Other 

Countries, but State 

Has Not 

Systematically

Assessed Its 

Effectiveness

Trafficking in Persons 

ReportCan Create 

Opportunities and 

Challenges in 

Encouraging Actions 

against Trafficking
Page 34 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Most State, other U.S. government agency, and NGO officials we spoke 

with agreed that the Trafficking in Persons Report can be a useful tool to 

encourage other countries’ governments to take action against trafficking 

in persons, with the United States seen as a leader on trafficking issues. 

According to U.S. government and NGO officials we interviewed, the 

report has international credibility, in part because the definition of 

trafficking and focus on prosecution, protection, and prevention are 

generally consistent with the UN Protocol on trafficking in persons, which 

most countries are party to.49 In addition, according to some of these 

officials, the report has raised awareness about trafficking, including 

forced labor and domestic servitude.

Countries’ concerns about their tier ranking, and thus their reputation, can 

help spur progress, according to State officials. For example, according to 

a regional bureau official, the report has helped prompt governments in 

the region to open shelters and raise awareness of trafficking, and, in one 

country, training recommended by the report led police to break up a 

trafficking ring. Further, other regional bureau officials said that improving 

their ranking in the Trafficking in Persons Report provides an incentive for 

those countries trying to join certain multilateral organizations, such as 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Many countries want to highlight 

the good they are doing and move to Tier 1. For example, Georgia, which 

officials said has made determined efforts, has subsequently moved to 

Tier 1.

State officials said they use the Trafficking in Persons Report for 

engagement with a country’s government. State communicates with each 

country’s government to provide a plan for future action following the 

report’s release. If State officials were considering downgrading a country 

but ultimately decided not to, a regional bureau official said they will use 

that information in discussions with the country. In addition, regional 

bureau officials said that some Chiefs of Mission will focus on trafficking 

as an issue in private meetings, public forums, op-eds, and speeches. 

State officials also discuss which of the Trafficking in Persons Report

recommendations could be realistically addressed in the next reporting 

period, according to officials, and discuss those recommendations with 

 49United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, 

Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against 

Transnational Organized Crime, G.A. res. 55/25, annex II, 55 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) 

at 60, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (Vol. I) (2001), which entered into force on December 25, 2003.

As of September 7, 2016, 169 countries are party to the protocol.

Trafficking in Persons Report

Can Be a Useful Tool to 

Encourage Governments to 

Address Trafficking
Page 35 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

the country’s government, especially those on Tier 2 Watch List and in 

Tier 3. According to a regional bureau official, the recommendations in 

the report are an important articulation of what the U.S. government sees 

as critical for a country to address. However, according to State officials, 

some of the recommendations cannot realistically be implemented in one 

year.

The Trafficking in Persons Report can also complicate bilateral efforts, 

according to State regional bureau officials. If a country is making efforts 

to combat trafficking but is downgraded, that country might stop its 

antitrafficking efforts or reduce bilateral dialogue with the United States 

since the country did not see any positive recognition of its efforts in the 

report, according to an official. Further, regional bureau officials said that 

some countries may have requested assistance to work on their 

antitrafficking goals, which, however, was not provided. State officials 

noted that resources for such assistance is finite and thus is prioritized 

based on various factors. Some State officials noted that some 

governments reacted negatively to report findings and were less receptive 

to open dialogue. However, officials added that cases of decreased 

receptiveness were usually temporary. For example, when one country 

was on Tier 2 Watch List, the government would not engage the U.S. 

government on trafficking issues, but now that the country is in Tier 2, the 

government regularly engages with the trafficking officer at post, 

according to a regional bureau official. In addition, a regional bureau 

official said that another country completely shut down relations and 

discontinued bilateral engagement with the United States for months after 

a disappointing tier ranking. Finally, some of these officials said that the 

Trafficking in Persons Report highlights negative factors more than 

positive actions, which makes other countries’ governments see the 

report as a punishment rather than an incentive to make efforts against 

trafficking.

As previously discussed, countries in Tier 3 are subject to restrictions on 

assistance. These restrictions cover nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related 

foreign assistance for affected governments, assistance through 

multilateral development banks and, for certain countries, funding for 

government official or employee participation in educational and cultural 

exchange programs. The President has issued full or partial waivers for 

many of the governments subject to the restrictions. For example, as 

previously discussed, 21 of the 23 countries ranked Tier 3 in 2015 

received a full or partial waiver. Officials raised questions about the 

efficacy of the funding restrictions. For example, some NGO officials said 

Trafficking in Persons Report 

Can Complicate Bilateral 

Relationships

The U.S. Government Has 

Frequently Waived Tier 3 

Funding Restrictions, 

Potentially Reducing Their 

Impact
Page 36 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

that, given the likelihood that the funding restrictions will be waived, 

governments do not see them as a credible threat that would motivate 

them to increase antitrafficking efforts. Further, some State officials said 

that, although some governments are motivated by the possibility of 

funding restrictions, many are more concerned about the reputational 

harm that comes with a Tier 3 ranking rather than about the risk of losing 

funding. In addition, State officials said that while the Trafficking in 

Persons Report is visible and is reported on locally, assistance from the 

World Bank and other international financial institutions, such as the 

International Monetary Fund, goes forward without U.S. support. Thus, 

U.S. opposition would not, on its own, prevent a country in Tier 3 from 

obtaining multilateral assistance.50

State has not yet systematically assessed the effectiveness of the 

Trafficking in Persons Report as a tool to encourage countries to combat 

human trafficking, according to State officials. As a result, State does not 

have a formal assessment of how well the report achieves the goal of 

encouraging governments to make progress in combating trafficking.

State officials noted a number of difficulties in systematically assessing 

the report’s effectiveness. For example, steps that foreign governments 

take to address human trafficking could be in response to any number of 

factors, not just the Trafficking in Persons Report. In addition, officials 

from one of the regional bureaus stated that because reliable data on the 

level of trafficking are limited due to its inherent clandestine nature, it is 

difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report in 

encouraging change. It is also difficult to measure a country’s efforts. For 

example, it can be difficult to assess whether a decrease in the number of 

victims identified indicates a decrease in trafficking, or fewer country 

efforts to identify and assist victims. The lack of reliable data on law 

enforcement and victim assistance further complicates efforts to assess 

effectiveness.

Trafficking Office and regional bureau officials stated that they do not 

systematically track the extent to which countries take the actions that 

State recommends in the report. According to State, the 

recommendations provide governments guidance on how to enhance 

 50See GAO, International Monetary Fund: Efforts to Advance U.S. Policy at the Fund, 

GAO-01-214 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2001).

State Does Not 

Systematically Assess the 

Effectiveness of the 

Trafficking in Persons 

Report
Page 37 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

their efforts to meet the TVPA’s minimum standards. Officials noted that 

interim assessments required by the TVPA, and the process State has for 

producing them, serve as a systematic review of progress by 

governments in implementing the recommendations for Tier 2 Watch List 

countries. In addition, the guidance on developing the report that the 

Trafficking Office analysts use includes a section for assessment of 

efforts to address the previous year’s recommendations. Further, the 

Trafficking Office has begun efforts to compile information on 

recommendations, such as the prioritization of the recommendations and 

the number of consecutive years the recommendations have been in the 

Trafficking in Persons Report. However, to date, the effort has not 

assessed the impact of the report’s recommendations.

Officials from the Trafficking Office stated that they have taken steps to 

more systematically assess the report’s effectiveness.51 Specifically, 

officials said they have hired a monitoring and evaluation expert to assess 

the Trafficking Office’s activities, including the Trafficking in Persons 

Report. In addition, Trafficking Office officials said they plan to develop a 

knowledge management database, for which they have solicited bids. 

According to these officials, a better understanding of the results of the 

Trafficking in Persons Report will contribute to this larger monitoring and 

evaluation effort. Further, these officials said they are considering ways to 

more effectively push for short- and medium-term progress in a way that 

also achieves the long-term structural changes needed to address 

trafficking. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government, agency officials need various types of information to 

determine whether they are meeting an agency’s objectives.52 Without 

systematically assessing the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons 

Report by, for example, tracking the implementation of recommendations, 

State does not know the extent to which the report is having an impact on 

punishing traffickers, protecting and assisting victims, and preventing 

human trafficking.

Human trafficking causes victims grave personal suffering and negatively 

affects the communities involved. Congress has maintained an active 

 51At least one academic study shows a link between the Trafficking in Persons Report and 

government action taken to combat trafficking. See, for example, Judith G. Kelley and 

Beth A. Simmons, “Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International 

Relations,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 59, no. 1 (2015).

52GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

Conclusions
Page 38 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

interest in human trafficking issues, including mandating and expanding 

the Trafficking in Persons Report, which highlights the exploitation of 

men, women, and children around the world and the efforts of 

governments to combat trafficking. Since our 2006 report, State has 

improved its reporting of these efforts. This complex task involves 

evaluation of every country against itself—per the minimum standards 

outlined in the TVPA and interpreted by State; one country’s efforts are 

not directly compared to those of another. In addition, every country is 

different, with varying degrees of capacity to address this heinous crime.

Some important shortcomings of the Trafficking in Persons Report could 

limit its usefulness as a tool to encourage countries to increase their 

efforts to prosecute and punish traffickers, protect and assist victims, and 

prevent trafficking. First, despite a legislative requirement to do so, State 

has not regularly posted on its public website a detailed description of the 

credible evidence supporting the determination to issue a waiver to avoid

an automatic downgrade to Tier 3. This lack of transparency limits the

ability of external stakeholders to understand the justification for these 

waivers and their usefulness in the annual review process. In addition, the 

Trafficking in Persons Report does not always explicitly communicate 

State’s assessment of how the highest-ranked foreign governments met 

the minimum standards to combat trafficking. The report also lacks an

explicit explanation for many of the decisions to upgrade or downgrade 

countries to a different tier. This lack of clarity could cause confusion 

about the status of country actions or State’s decision making and could 

limit the ability of State and others to use the report as a diplomatic tool to 

advance efforts to combat trafficking. Consistent language could help 

clarify State’s assessment of actions governments have taken. Finally, 

State has not systematically assessed the effectiveness of the Trafficking 

in Persons Report; as a result, State does not know how well the report 

achieves the goal of diminishing trafficking in persons throughout the 

world. The Trafficking in Persons Report sheds light on the efforts 

governments and organizations throughout the world are taking to fight 

trafficking. Improvements to the report can increase its usefulness as 

another tool in the struggle to protect and provide justice for vulnerable 

populations.

To improve the transparency and clarity of the Trafficking in Persons 

Report and improve its usefulness as a diplomatic tool to encourage 

countries to address trafficking, we recommend that the Secretary of 

State take the following four actions:

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 39 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

1. On an annual basis, ensure the full implementation of recently revised

Trafficking in Persons Report preparation guidance that includes

posting a detailed description of the credible evidence used to support

automatic downgrade waivers on its publicly available website, in

compliance with the 2013 TVPA.

2. Improve explanations in narratives for Tier 1 rankings, including using

consistent language, as feasible, in the Trafficking in Persons Report.

3. Provide an explicit linkage between statements in the Trafficking in

Persons Report and decisions to upgrade or downgrade a country’s

tier ranking.

4. Take actions, such as tracking the recommendations in the Trafficking

in Persons Report, to assess the effectiveness of the report as a tool

to encourage countries to address human trafficking.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State for comment.

In its written comments, reproduced in appendix V, State concurred with 

the recommendations. Specifically, State said that, as our report noted, it

has updated its standard operating procedures to ensure a description of

the credible evidence used to support automatic downgrade waivers, as

required by the TVPA, is posted to State’s website. While updating 

State’s procedures is an important step, our recommendation is to ensure 

the full implementation of those new procedures. In addition, State said it

seeks to make each country narrative comprehensive in order to make 

the Trafficking in Persons Report as useful as possible to a broad array of

stakeholders and will continue its commitment to ensure each narrative 

better serves this purpose. Finally, State described steps it is taking to 

more systematically assess the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons 

Report in encouraging governments to address human trafficking,

including the recent establishment of a monitoring and evaluation position 

in the Trafficking Office.

State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments
Page 40 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VI.

Thomas Melito

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 41 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

List of Addressees

The Honorable Lindsey Graham

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert Menendez

United States Senate

The Honorable Kay Granger

Chairwoman

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

This report addresses (1) the process the Department of State (State) 

uses to prepare country narratives and decide tier rankings in the 

Trafficking in Persons Report; (2) the extent to which country narratives in 

the Trafficking in Persons Report clearly discuss the minimum standards 

to combat trafficking as enumerated in the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act (TVPA) and interpreted by State; and (3) the extent to which State 

assesses the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report as a 

diplomatic tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking.

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents and relevant laws, 

including the TVPA, as amended. We interviewed officials from State’s 

Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking Office) 

and from all of State’s regional bureaus: the bureaus of African Affairs, 

East Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near 

Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and Western 

Hemisphere Affairs. In addition, we interviewed State functional offices 

and bureaus that have some involvement in the Trafficking in Persons 

Report. These include the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; the 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; the Office of Foreign Assistance; the 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and the Bureau of 

Population, Refugees, and Migration. We also selected countries in each 

of the tiers that had changed tier in 2015 and interviewed the relevant 

officials from each of the U.S. missions and the corresponding country 

desk officers. We selected 3 countries that were upgraded to a higher tier 

(Portugal, Rwanda, and Uzbekistan)1 and 2 that were downgraded to a 

lower tier (Slovenia and Belize).2 As much as possible, we selected 

countries of different sizes and from different geographic regions. We also 

interviewed officials from agencies that have some involvement in the 

report process: the Departments of Defense (DOD) and the Treasury 

(Treasury), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 

In addition, we held a roundtable discussion with officials from 13 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), organized by an umbrella group 

of NGOs focused on trafficking in persons. We did not select a 

generalizable sample of officials to interview.

To assess the process State uses to prepare country narratives and 

decide tier rankings, we reviewed the TVPA, as amended; the Trafficking 

in Persons Report; and State report preparation guidance documents. We 

 1Both Rwanda and Uzbekistan were subsequently downgraded in 2016.

2Slovenia was subsequently upgraded in 2016.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

also interviewed cognizant officials from State, DOD, Treasury, and 

USAID, as well as from NGOs about the process, including how State 

gathers information for the report and how decisions are made on waivers 

to avoid automatic downgrades as well as waivers of funding restrictions 

for countries in Tier 3.

To assess the extent to which the country narratives in the Trafficking in 

Persons Report clearly discuss the minimum standards to combat 

trafficking as enumerated in the TVPA and interpreted by State, we 

reviewed 185 country narratives in the 2015 Trafficking in Persons 

Report.3 We also reviewed the 35 Tier 1 country narratives in the 2016 

Trafficking in Persons Report. We systematically compared the country 

narratives with the minimum standards (as interpreted and applied by 

State) and determined whether the narratives clearly explain State’s 

assessment of the degree of governments’ compliance with them. We 

used the following coding system when assessing the country narratives 

against State’s interpretation of the minimum standards:

• If the country narrative did not mention a standard or criterion, we 

coded that as “not mentioned.”

• If the country narrative did mention a standard or criterion, we 

determined whether the narrative clearly described that the 

government complied or did not comply with the standard or criterion 

(as interpreted and applied by State).

• If we determined that the narrative included language that seemed 

consistent with the standard or criterion, we coded that as “met.”

• If we determined that the narrative included language that seemed 

contradictory to the standard or criterion, we coded that as “not 

met.”

• In some cases, the narratives mentioned a standard or criterion, 

but included ambiguous language that made it unclear if the 

standard or criterion were met. We coded those cases as “cannot 

determine.”

 3In addition to the 185 countries, the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report also included two 

territories (Aruba and St. Maarten), which are autonomous entities of other countries but 

not “countries” to which the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in the 

TVPA apply. The report also included one special case (Somalia), which discusses a 

country’s government’s efforts to address trafficking but does not provide a tier ranking for 

the country.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

In addition, for criterion 11 of minimum standard four, we examined the 

first sentence of each of the prosecution, protection, and prevention 

sections of the country narratives to determine whether they clearly 

described that the government made appreciable progress in combating 

trafficking when compared with the previous year’s assessment. 

Trafficking Office analysts said that governments should show overall

increasing efforts across the prosecution, protection, and prevention 

categories to meet this criterion but that increasing efforts in each of 

these categories is not necessarily required.4 We used the following 

coding system when assessing the opening sentences:

• If the sentence noted that the government made progress, or made 

strong, improved, or increased efforts (or other similar words), we 

coded that as “met.” We then reported these as country narratives 

that generally described increasing efforts.

• If the sentence noted that the government made no efforts or 

progress, or made decreased or inadequate efforts, we coded that as 

“not met.” We also coded as “not met” efforts described as weak or 

negligible (or other similar words). We then reported these as country 

narratives that generally described decreasing or inadequate efforts.

• If the sentence noted that the government sustained, maintained, or 

continued its efforts, we coded that as “cannot determine.” We also 

coded mixed efforts, or efforts described using words such as modest, 

uneven, limited, or minimal as “cannot determine.”5 We then reported 

these as country narratives that generally described mixed or 

sustained efforts.

We did not assess whether State had placed countries in the appropriate 

tier. Each country narrative was assessed independently by two analysts, 

using a detailed rules document developed from State’s guidelines and 

through discussions with State. We also analyzed the narratives for the 

82 countries that changed tiers in the 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in 

 4According to State guidelines, criterion 11 is particularly relevant for existing Tier 1 

countries whose governments should show evidence of sustained progress in combating 

trafficking in persons.

5

Trafficking Office analysts said that efforts described as “minimal” or “limited” mean that

State might not have been able to make a clear determination one way or the other about 

whether a country increased its efforts; hence, we coded these as “cannot determine.”
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Persons reports to assess whether the narratives clearly explain why 

State changed a country’s tier.6

To assess the extent to which State assesses the effectiveness of the 

Trafficking in Persons Report as a diplomatic tool to encourage countries 

to address human trafficking, we interviewed officials from State, DOD, 

the Treasury, USAID, and representatives of NGOs about the credibility 

and effectiveness of the report and how it is used. We also reviewed 

documents related to funding restrictions and waivers of funding 

restrictions for countries in Tier 3.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 6In addition to the 82 countries, one territory (St. Maarten) was also upgraded in its tier 

ranking in the 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report. 
Appendix II: Minimum Standards and Criteria 

for the Elimination of Trafficking in Persons

Page 46 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Minimum standard 1 The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts 

of such trafficking.

Minimum standard 2 For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which 

the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which 

includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe 

punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.

Minimum standard 3 For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of 

the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately 

reflects the heinous nature of the offense.

Minimum standard 4 The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of 

trafficking in persons.

In determinations under minimum standard 4, the following factors should be considered as indicia of serious and sustained efforts to 

eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons

Criterion 1 Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates and prosecutes acts of severe forms of 

trafficking in persons, and convicts and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place 

wholly or partly within the territory of the country, including, as appropriate, requiring incarceration of 

individuals convicted of such acts. For purposes of the preceding sentence, suspended or significantly 

reduced sentences for convictions of principal actors in cases of severe forms of trafficking in persons 

shall be considered, on a case-by-case basis, whether to be considered an indicator of serious and 

sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. After reasonable requests from the 

Department of State for data regarding investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a 

government which does not provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such government to 

obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or 

sentenced such acts. During the periods prior to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and on 

June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State 

may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has provided 

some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the 

government is making a good faith effort to collect such data.

Criterion 2 Whether the government of the country protects victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and 

encourages their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including 

provisions for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would face retribution or 

hardship, and ensures that victims are not inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized 

solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked, including by providing training to law 

enforcement and immigration officials regarding the identification and treatment of trafficking victims 

using approaches that focus on the needs of the victims.

Criterion 3 Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to prevent severe forms of trafficking in 

persons, such as measures to inform and educate the public, including potential victims, about the 

causes and consequences of severe forms of trafficking in persons, measures to establish the identity 

of local populations, including birth registration, citizenship, and nationality, measures to ensure that 

its nationals who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission 

do not engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, 

a transparent system for remediating or punishing such public officials as a deterrent, measures to 

prevent the use of forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards, effective bilateral, 

multilateral, or regional information sharing and cooperation arrangements with other countries, and 

effective policies or laws regulating foreign labor recruiters and holding them civilly and criminally liable 

for fraudulent recruiting.

Criterion 4 Whether the government of the country cooperates with other governments in the investigation and 

prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons and has entered into bilateral, multilateral, or 

regional law enforcement cooperation and coordination arrangements with other countries.

Appendix II: Minimum Standards and Criteria 

for the Elimination of Trafficking in Persons
Appendix II: Minimum Standards and Criteria 

for the Elimination of Trafficking in Persons

Page 47 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Criterion 5 Whether the government of the country extradites persons charged with acts of severe forms of 

trafficking in persons on substantially the same terms and to substantially the same extent as persons 

charged with other serious crimes (or, to the extent such extradition would be inconsistent with the 

laws of such country or with international agreements to which the country is a party, whether the 

government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and treaties so as to 

permit such extradition).

Criterion 6 Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of 

severe forms of trafficking in persons and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond 

to any such evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation and prosecution of 

acts of such trafficking, as well as with the protection of human rights of victims and the internationally 

recognized human right to leave any country, including one’s own, and to return to one’s own country.

Criterion 7 Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates, prosecutes, convicts, and sentences 

public officials, including diplomats and soldiers, who participate in or facilitate severe forms of 

trafficking in persons, including nationals of the country who are deployed abroad as part of a 

diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate severe forms of 

trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, and takes all appropriate measures against 

officials who condone such trafficking. A government’s failure to appropriately address public 

allegations against such public officials, especially once such officials have returned to their home 

countries, shall be considered inaction under these criteria. After reasonable requests from the 

Department of State for data regarding such investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, 

a government which does not provide such data consistent with its resources shall be presumed not to 

have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts. During the periods prior 

to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and on June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until 

September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in 

the preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the Department of State 

regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good faith 

effort to collect such data.

Criterion 8 Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the country that are non-citizens of 

such countries is insignificant.

Criterion 9 Whether the government has entered into effective, transparent partnerships, cooperative 

arrangements, or agreements that have resulted in concrete and measurable outcomes with:

(A) domestic civil society organizations, private sector entities, or international nongovernmental

organizations, or into multilateral or regional arrangements or agreements, to assist the government’s 

efforts to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and punish traffickers; or

(B) the United States toward agreed goals and objectives in the collective fight against trafficking.

Criterion 10 Whether the government of the country, consistent with the capacity of such government, 

systematically monitors efforts to satisfy the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and 

makes available publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.

Criterion 11 Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of 

trafficking when compared to the assessment in the previous year.

Criterion 12 Whether the government of the country has made serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand 

for—

(A) commercial sex acts; and

(B) participation in international sex tourism by nationals of the country.

Source: Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended. Pub. L. No. 106-386, Div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-1490, codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101-13. | GAO-17-56
Appendix III: Tier Ranking by Country in 2016 

Trafficking in Persons Report

Page 48 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Table 1: Tier 1

Armenia Czech Republic Italy Slovakia

Australia Denmark Korea, South Slovenia

Austria Finland Lithuania Spain

The Bahamas France Netherlands Sweden

Belgium Georgia New Zealand Switzerland

Canada Germany Norway Taiwan

Chile Iceland Philippines United Kingdom

Colombia Ireland Poland United States of America

Cyprus Israel Portugal

Source: The Department of State’s 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report | GAO-17-56

Note: The Trafficking in Persons Report included St. Maarten in Tier 1. The report also noted that St. 

Maarten is an autonomous entity w ithin the Kingdom of the Netherlands and, for the purposes of the 

report, is not a “country” to w hich the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking apply. The 

report reflected how St. Maarten w ould be assessed if it w ere a separate, independent country.

Table 2: Tier 2

Albania El Salvador Lebanon Palau

Angola Estonia Lesotho Panama

Argentina Ethiopia Liberia Paraguay

Azerbaijan Fiji Luxembourg Peru

Bahrain Greece Macau Romania

Bangladesh Guatemala Macedonia Sierra Leone

Barbados Guyana Madagascar Singapore

Bhutan Honduras Malawi South Africa

Bosnia & Herzegovina Hungary Malta Tajikistan

Botswana India Mauritius Timor-Leste

Brazil Indonesia Mexico Togo

Brunei Iraq Micronesia Turkey

Burkina Faso Jamaica Moldova Uganda

Cambodia Japan Mongolia United Arab Emirates

Chad Jordan Montenegro Uruguay

Croatia Kazakhstan Morocco Vietnam

Curaçao Kenya Namibia Zambia

Dominican Republic Kosovo Nepal

Ecuador Kyrgyzstan Nicaragua

Egypt Latvia Nigeria

Source: The Department of State’s 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report | GAO-17-56

Appendix III: Tier Ranking by Country in 

2016 Trafficking in Persons Report
Appendix III: Tier Ranking by Country in 2016 

Trafficking in Persons Report

Page 49 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Note: The Trafficking in Persons Report included Aruba in Tier 2. The report also noted that Aruba is 

an autonomous entity w ithin the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and, for the purposes of the report, is 

not a “country” to which the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking apply. The report 

reflected how Aruba would be assessed if it w ere a separate, independent country.

Table 3: Tier 2 Watch List

Afghanistan Cote d’Ivoire Mali Solomon Islands

Antigua & Barbuda Cuba Mozambique Sri Lanka

Benin Gabon Niger St. Lucia

Bolivia Ghana Oman St. Vincent & the Grenadines

Bulgaria Guinea Pakistan Swaziland

Cabo Verde Hong Kong Qatar Tanzania

Cameroon Kiribati Rwanda Thailand

China (PRC) Kuwait Saudi Arabia Tonga

Congo, Democratic Rep. of Laos Senegal Trinidad & Tobago

Congo, Republic of Malaysia Serbia Tunisia

Costa Rica Maldives Seychelles Ukraine

Source: The Department of State’s 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report | GAO-17-56

Table 4: Tier 3

Algeria Djibouti Korea, North Suriname

Belarus Equatorial Guinea Marshall Islands Syria

Belize Eritrea Mauritania Turkmenistan

Burma The Gambia Papua New Guinea Uzbekistan

Burundi Guinea-Bissau Russia Venezuela

Central African Republic Haiti South Sudan Zimbabwe

Comoros Iran Sudan

Source: The Department of State’s 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report | GAO-17-56

Table 5: Special Cases

Libya Yemen

Somalia

Source: The Department of State’s 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report | GAO-17-56
Appendix IV: Law Enforcement Data in the 

State Department’s Trafficking in Persons 

Report

Page 50 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) requires that the Secretary 

of State annually submit a report describing the antitrafficking efforts of 

the United States and foreign governments according to the minimum 

standards and criteria enumerated in section 108 of the TVPA.1 The 

Department of State (State) interprets this to require that evidence of 

trafficking investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences be 

considered in State’s assessment of whether governments are making 

serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking. Our 

analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that the country 

narratives generally mentioned such data, trends compared to previous 

years, as well as details on the legal basis of law enforcement action and 

the sufficiency of those laws and their implementation. However, it is 

unclear what the data may mean relative to other factors, such as a 

government’s capacity or resources to address trafficking, the importance 

of cases, or the significance of the data relative to the magnitude of the 

trafficking problem in that county.

State bureau officials noted that law enforcement data could be difficult to 

interpret, unreliable, or may not provide a useful description of the 

situation in the country. For example:

(1) Data may be difficult to interpret. Officials said data on prosecutions 

and convictions may not accurately reflect the level of law 

enforcement efforts. For example, it may be unclear whether 

increased prosecutions and convictions means the trafficking situation 

in the country is getting worse or that the government is doing a better 

job of enforcing its anti-trafficking laws.

(2) Data may be unreliable. According to officials, it is unclear if the data 

are accurate or reliable. For example, the data may not be public, and 

countries may lack centralized systems, according to officials. Officials 

also noted that an emphasis on increased prosecutions and 

convictions might lead to a country arresting innocent people to 

increase its numbers.

(3) Data may not provide a useful description of the situation. Officials 

said that an emphasis on increased law enforcement numbers may 

not accurately reflect a country’s successes or tell the whole story. For 

example, a country might have increased its law enforcement efforts 

in ways that did not result in increased prosecutions. Further, a 

country might be penalized for not having convictions when the cases 

 122 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1).

Appendix IV: Law Enforcement Data in the 

State Department’s Trafficking in Persons 

Report
Appendix IV: Law Enforcement Data in the 

State Department’s Trafficking in Persons 

Report

Page 51 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

being prosecuted are taking time to work through the judicial system, 

or for not reporting data when lacking the systems needed to do so.

State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking 

Office) acknowledges that there are limitations to the law enforcement 

data, but maintains that the data are a strength of the report. For 

example, State can use the numbers on investigations, prosecutions, and 

convictions, when they are too low relative to the trafficking problem, 

according to the Trafficking Office, to push governments to do more. The 

Trafficking Office also noted that it uses the same methodology every 

year so the data are comparable from one year to the next, and that it 

does not accept a government’s data without efforts to verify the data, or 

noting in the report when there are issues with the data.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 52 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 53 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 54 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 55 GAO-17-56 Human Trafficking 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601, melitot@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Leslie Holen (Assistant Director), 

Christina Werth, Julia Jebo Grant, and Esther Toledo made key 

contributions to this report. In addition, Lynn Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, 

Karen Deans, Neil Doherty, and Grace Lui provided technical assistance.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100339)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.