HUMAN 

TRAFFICKING

Action Needed to 

Identify the Number of 

Native American 

Victims Receiving 

Federally-funded 

Services 

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2017

GAO-17-325

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-325, a report to 

congressional requesters

March 2017

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Action Needed to Identify the Number of Native 

American Victims Receiving Federally-funded 

Services 

What GAO Found

All four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian 

country—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case management systems 

whether a human trafficking offense was involved in the case. With the exception 

of ICE, these agencies are also required to record in their case management 

systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. ICE officials explained 

that the agency does not record this information because, unlike BIA and the 

FBI, ICE is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country. 

Typically, ICE would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if specifically 

invited by a tribe to do so. Further, with the exception of BIA, these agencies do 

not require their agents or attorneys to collect or record Native American status 

of victims in their cases due to concerns about victim privacy and lack of 

relevance of the victim’s race to the substance of the investigation or 

prosecution. 

The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and 

Homeland Security (DHS) administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal 

years 2013 through 2016 that could help address Native American human 

trafficking. For example, 21 of these grant programs, which were administered by 

DOJ and HHS, could be used to provide services to Native American human 

trafficking victims. However, the total number of Native American victims who 

received services under these grant programs is unknown. HHS is developing a 

data collection tool that grantees can use to report information on human 

trafficking victims served, including Native American status of victims. DOJ’s

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) requires grantees to report Native 

American status of victims served, but not by type of crime. DOJ’s Office for 

Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) do not require grantees to collect and report Native 

American status of victims served. However, in fiscal year 2017, OVC began 

providing recipients of human trafficking-specific grant programs the option to 

report the race or Native American status of victims served. While Native 

American status may not generally be a factor for determining whether a victim 

can receive services, it may be a factor for determining how best to assist this 

particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal Strategic Action 

Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States, 

expanding human trafficking data collection and research efforts for Native 

Americans and other vulnerable populations is an area for improvement for the 

federal government. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government states that quality information should be used to achieve objectives 

based on relevant data from reliable sources. Without collecting data on the 

Native American status of victims served, federal agencies will not know the 

extent to which they are achieving government-wide strategic goals to provide 

and improve services to vulnerable populations, including Native American 

human trafficking victims.

Why GAO Did This Study

Human trafficking—the exploitation of 

a person typically through force, fraud, 

or coercion for such purposes as 

forced labor, involuntary servitude or 

commercial sex—is occurring in the 

United States. Traffickers seek out 

persons perceived to be vulnerable. 

Native Americans (i.e., American 

Indians or Alaska Natives) are 

considered to be a vulnerable 

population. DOJ, DHS, and the

Department of the Interior investigate

human trafficking crimes. Primarily, 

DOJ and HHS provide grants to fund 

victim services. 

GAO was asked to examine Native 

American human trafficking. This 

report focuses on federal efforts to 

address human trafficking, including 

the extent to which (1) agencies collect 

and maintain data on investigations 

and prosecutions of human trafficking

in Indian country or of Native 

Americans regardless of location and 

(2) federal grant programs are 

available to help address such

trafficking, and how many Native 

American trafficking victims have 

received assistance through these 

programs. GAO reviewed human 

trafficking investigation and 

prosecution data from fiscal years 

2013 to 2016; reviewed solicitations for 

human trafficking-related grant 

programs; and interviewed grant 

program officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ require its

grantees to report the number of 

human trafficking victims served and, 

as appropriate, the Native American 

status of those victims. DOJ partially 

concurred with the recommendation. 

GAO clarified the recommendation and 

maintains action is needed. 

View GAO-17-325. For more information, 

contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 or 

goodwing@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Letter 1

Background 5

While Federal Agencies Generally Maintain Data on Human 

Trafficking Cases in Indian Country, They Do Not Maintain Data 

on Native American Status of Victims 16

At Least 50 Federal Grant Programs Can Be Used to Address 

Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, but 

Number of Native American Victims Served Is Unknown 20

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendix I Department of Justice Efforts to Develop Methodologies to Determine 

Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and Applicability to Native American 

Populations 33

Appendix II Allowable Uses for 50 Federal Grant Programs that Could Address 

Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans 37

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Justice 43

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements 49

Related GAO Products 50

Tables

Table 1: Number of Federal Investigations and Prosecutions 

Involving Human Trafficking Offenses in Indian Country, 

Fiscal Years 2013 - 2016 18

Table 2: Federal Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies’ 

Policies on Collecting Victims’ Native American Status in 

Criminal Cases 19

Contents 
Page ii GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Table 3: Native American Status Reporting Requirements for 

Federal Grant Programs that Provide Services for Native 

American Human Trafficking Victims 25

Figures

Figure 1: Areas of Indian Country in the Contiguous United States, 

according to the 2010 Census 7

Figure 2: Map of Native American Population in the United States, 

according to the 2010 Census 8

Figure 3: Federal Agencies Responsible for Investigating and 

Prosecuting Human Trafficking Crimes in Indian Country 13

Figure 4: Federal Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans for 

which Funding Was Awarded in Fiscal Years 2014 - 2016 21

Figure 5: Allowable Activities of Federal Grant Programs that 

Could Be Used to Address Human Trafficking in Indian 

Country or of Native Americans in Fiscal Years 2013 - 

2016 22
Page iii GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Abbreviations

ACF Administration of Children and Families

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

EOUSA Executive Office for United States Attorneys

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

ICE HSI U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland 

Security Investigations

NIJ National Institute of Justice

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

OJP Office of Justice Programs

OTIP Office on Trafficking in Persons

OVC Office of Victims of Crime

OVW Office on Violence Against Women

USAO United States Attorney’s Office

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-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 30, 2017

The Honorable John Hoeven

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Udall

Vice Chairman

Committee on Indian Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable John Barrasso

United States Senate

The Honorable Jon Tester

United States Senate

Human trafficking—the exploitation of a person typically through force, 

fraud, or coercion for such purposes as forced labor, involuntary servitude 

or commercial sex—is occurring in the United States.1 Human trafficking 

victims include women, men and transgender individuals, as well as

children, foreign nationals and U.S. citizens or nationals, who are diverse 

with respect to race and ethnicity, among other factors. According to the 

Attorney General’s fiscal year 2015 annual report to Congress on human 

trafficking, traffickers seek out persons perceived to be vulnerable.2

Vulnerability comes in many forms, including age (minors), poverty, 

homelessness, chemical dependency, prior experiences of abuse, and 

lack of resources or support systems, among others. Native Americans 

are a vulnerable population.3 For example, according to U.S. Census 

 

1Federal law generally recognizes two forms of human trafficking—sex trafficking and 

labor trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended, 

defines human trafficking under the term “severe forms of trafficking in persons,” which 

means: (1) sex trafficking involving the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, 

obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for a commercial sex act through force, 

fraud, or coercion, or where the victim has not attained 18 years of age; or (2) labor 

trafficking involving 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. See Pub. L. No. 

106-386, div. A, § 103, 114 Stat. 1464, 1469-70 (classified, as amended, at 22 U.S.C. § 

7102(4), (9), (10)).

2Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. Government 

Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons, Fiscal Year 2015. 

3Throughout this report, we generally use the term “Native American” in reference to an 

American Indian or Alaska Native. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Bureau statistics, in 2010, 28 percent of Native Americans were living in 

poverty, compared to 15 percent of the general population. Also, 

according to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

about 27 percent of Native American women have been raped in their 

lifetime compared to 18 percent of women, overall.4

Furthermore, according to several academic studies, Native Americans 

have endured a succession of traumatic events that have had lasting 

consequences for community members.5 For example, Native Americans 

have been subjected to a number of assimilation policies—including 

boarding schools, relocation, involuntary sterilization, and forced 

adoptions, which have disrupted family, kinship, community structures, 

and governance. The historical trauma that the Native American 

community has faced is critical to understanding the vulnerability of 

today’s Native men, women, and children to sex and labor trafficking in 

the United States.

You asked us to research human trafficking in Indian country and of 

Native Americans, in general, including demographic information on 

victims, services available to victims, and efforts to increase prosecutions. 

This report focuses on federal efforts to address human trafficking in 

Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of location. We will 

issue a second report later this year that will include perspectives from 

tribal and local law enforcement agencies and victim service providers on 

human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of 

location. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions:

(1) To what extent do federal agencies collect and maintain data on 

investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking in Indian country 

or of Native Americans regardless of location?

 

4Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, 

J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

(NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

5 Evans-Campbell, T. (2008). Historical Trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska 

Communities: A Multi-level Frame-work for Exploring Impacts on Individuals, Families, 

and Communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23 (3), 316-338. Retrieved from: 

https://ces300.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/j-interpers-violence-2008-evans-campbell-316

-38.pdf. Walters, K., Mohammed, S.A., Evans-Campbell, T., Beltrán, R.E., Chae, D.H., & 

Duran, B. (2011). Bodies Don’t Just Tell Stories, They Tell Histories. Dubois Review: 

Social Science Research on Race 8 (1), 179-189.
Page 3 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

(2) To what extent are federal grant programs available to help address 

human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless 

of location, and how many Native American trafficking victims have 

received assistance through these programs?

For the purposes of this review, our discussion of human trafficking 

relates to: (a) human trafficking that occurs in Indian country (regardless 

of whether the victim is Native American); or, (b) human trafficking of 

individuals who are Native American (regardless of whether they were 

trafficked in Indian country or elsewhere). 6, 7

To address the first objective, we obtained and reviewed data from 

federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) on the number of human trafficking 

investigations and prosecutions they conducted for which the crime 

occurred in Indian country or at least one of the victims was Native 

American. We obtained data for fiscal years 2013 through 2016, the most 

recently available data. We assessed the reliability of the data the 

agencies provided by questioning knowledgeable officials and reviewing 

the data for obvious errors and anomalies. We determined that the data, 

when available, were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting 

objectives. We also interviewed headquarters officials from these same 

agencies to learn about their policies and procedures for collecting 

information on the Native American status of human trafficking victims 

involved in their cases. Specifically, at DHS, we interviewed officials from 

the Office of the Deputy Secretary and U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). At DOI, we 

interviewed officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). At DOJ, we 

 

6Federal law defines the term “Indian country” as all land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all dependent Indian 

communities within U.S. borders, and all existing Indian allotments, including any rights-ofway running through an allotment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151.

7Throughout this report, we generally use the term “Native American” in reference to an 

American Indian or Alaska Native, including persons who have identified themselves as 

Native American or individuals whom federal agencies have identified as Native American 

based on relevant legal authorities and agency procedures. The terms “Indian” and 

“Alaska Native” are defined under federal law for various purposes. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 

3102(16); 20 U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(1); 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301(4), 1903(3), 2201(2), 4103(10), 

5129; 42 U.S.C. § 13925(a)(13); 43 U.S.C. § 1602(b). The U.S. Census Bureau has noted 

that “American Indian or Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in any of the 

original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who 

maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. 
Page 4 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

interviewed officials from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Civil Rights Division/Criminal 

Section, Criminal Division/Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, 

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Justice Management 

Division. We identified these agencies as having responsibility to 

investigate and prosecute human trafficking based on our prior work.8

To address the second objective, we reviewed fiscal year 2014 and 2015 

human trafficking grant programs identified through our prior human 

trafficking work to determine which of these grant programs could be 

used to address human trafficking in Indian country or of Native 

Americans regardless of location.9 To identify any additional grant 

programs for which funding was awarded in fiscal year 2016 that could be 

used to address human trafficking in Indian country or of Native 

Americans regardless of location, we reviewed grant solicitations on 

DOJ’s and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

websites and interviewed relevant grant officials. We determined that a 

grant program would be relevant for the purposes of our review if the 

grant solicitation (1) explicitly identified combatting human trafficking or 

assisting human trafficking victims as an allowable use and identified 

tribal entities as eligible recipients or (2) exclusively identified Native 

American crime victims (regardless of the type of crime) as eligible 

beneficiaries. It is possible that there are some programs that were not 

identified by granting agencies or by our analysis of public records. Also, 

there are additional grant programs that could be used to assist victims of 

crime in general, but we did not include those programs in our scope if 

human trafficking victims were not explicitly identified in the solicitation. 

We reviewed the solicitations for each of the grant programs we identified 

to determine the allowable uses for the funding (e.g., services to victims 

versus training for law enforcement). In addition, we interviewed federal 

officials responsible for administering human trafficking-related grant 

programs to learn whether the granting agencies required grantees to 

 

8GAO, Human Trafficking: Agencies Have Taken Steps to Assess Prevalence, Address 

Victim Issues, and Avoid Grant Duplication, GAO-16-555 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 

2016). As part of our prior human trafficking work, we determined that the Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security in the Department of State, the Inspector General for the Department 

of Labor, and the military investigative services in the Department of Defense also have 

responsibility for investigating human trafficking. However, we excluded them from the 

scope of this review because they do not have specific authority to investigate crimes in 

Indian country. 

9GAO-16-555. 
Page 5 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

report the Native American status of human trafficking victims they 

served. We evaluated the granting agencies’ data collection requirements 

against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

regarding the use of quality information.10

We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to March 2017 

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.

As of January 2017, there were 567 federally recognized American Indian 

and Alaska Native tribes and villages. According to BIA, there were 

approximately 326 Indian land areas in the United States that are 

administered as federal Indian reservations or other tribal lands (e.g., 

reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.). 

These land areas can generally be referred to as Indian country, which 

spans more than 56 million acres and 36 states, and varies in size, 

 

10GAO-14-704G. 

Background

Indian Country and the 

Native American 

Population
Page 6 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

demographics, and location.11 For example, the Navajo Nation consists of 

approximately 27,000 square miles, whereas certain areas of Indian 

country in California comprise less than 1 square mile.12 The 2010 

Census found that approximately 169,000 Native Americans lived on the 

Navajo reservation, while other areas of Indian country have fewer than 

50 Native American residents. Indian country is often in remote, rural 

locations, or may also be located near urban areas. Indian country may 

have a mixture of Native American and non-Native American residents. 

Figure 1 illustrates where Indian country is located in the contiguous 

United States as of 2010.

 

11Federal law defines the term “Indian country” as all land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all dependent Indian 

communities within U.S. borders, and all existing Indian allotments, including any rights-ofway running through an allotment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151. With certain exceptions, there is 

generally not Indian country in Alaska. In a 1998 decision, the Supreme Court stated that 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971) 

(classified, as amended, at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1629h)) “revoked ‘the various reserves set 

aside...for Native use’ by legislative or executive action, except for the Annette Island

Reserve inhabited by the Metlakatla Indians, and completely extinguished all aboriginal 

claims to Alaska land.” Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov’t, 522 U.S. 520, 523-

24 (1998) (citing 43 U.S.C. §§ 1603, 1618(a)). The court held that the “approximately 1.8 

million acres of land in northern Alaska, owned in fee simple by the Native Village of 

Venetie Tribal Government pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 

U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., is [not] ‘Indian country.’” Id. at 523. In December 2014, the 

Department of the Interior amended its land-into-trust regulations to allow applications for 

land to be taken into trust in Alaska outside of the Metlakatla Indian Community of the 

Annette Island Reserve. Land Acquisitions in the State of Alaska, 79 Fed. Reg. 76,888 

(Dec. 23, 2014) (to be codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 151). Interior treats land held in trust by the 

United States on behalf of a federally recognized Indian tribe as Indian country. 79 Fed. 

Reg. at 76,893.

12The Navajo Nation spans three states—-Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
Page 7 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Figure 1: Areas of Indian Country in the Contiguous United States, according to the 

2010 Census

a

Federal law defines the term “Indian country” as all land w ithin the limits of any Indian reservation 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all dependent Indian communities w ithin U.S. borders, 

and all existing Indian allotments, including any rights-of-way running through an allotment. See 18 

U.S.C. § 1151.

According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million people in the United States 

identified as Native American, either alone or in combination with one or 

more other races. Out of this total, 2.9 million people—0.9 percent of the 

U.S. population at the time—identified as Native American alone. At the 

time of the 2010 Census, more than 1.1 million Native Americans resided 

on tribal lands.13 Figure 2 shows where Native Americans resided in the 

United States at the time of the 2010 Census.

 

13United States Census Bureau, www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf. 
Page 8 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Figure 2: Map of Native American Population in the United States, according to the 2010 Census

Note: Throughout this report, w e generally use the term “Native American” in reference to an 

American Indian or Alaska Native. The U.S. Census Bureau has noted that “American Indian or 

Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South 

America (including Central America) and w ho maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. 

The Census Bureau collects race data according to U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

guidelines, and these data are based on self-identification. People may choose to report more than 

one race group. People of any race may be of any ethnic origin.

Federal law generally recognizes two forms of human trafficking—sex 

trafficking and labor trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 

2000 (TVPA), as amended, defines human trafficking under the term 

Federal Law on Human 

Trafficking
Page 9 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

“severe forms of trafficking in persons.”14 Pursuant to the TVPA, as 

amended, sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, 

provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose 

of a commercial sex act.15 Sex trafficking is a “severe” form of trafficking 

when it involves force, fraud or coercion, or where the victim has not 

attained 18 years of age, in which case force, fraud or coercion are not 

necessary elements.16 The TVPA, as amended, defines labor related 

trafficking generally as 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.17

Federal efforts to combat and prevent human trafficking in the United 

States have evolved over time, including various laws that have 

established federal agencies’ roles in these efforts. During the 1990s, the 

United States began to take steps to address human trafficking at home 

and abroad.18 Over the past few decades, Congress has taken numerous 

legislative actions to help combat human trafficking and ensure that 

victims have access to needed services. In October 2000, the TVPA was 

enacted to combat trafficking in persons, ensure just and effective 

punishment of traffickers and protect trafficking victims.19 Among other 

things, the TVPA, as amended, makes it illegal to knowingly or recklessly 

use force, fraud, or coercion to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, 

obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, or solicit any person to engage in a 

 

14Pub. L. No. 106-386, div. A, § 103, 114 Stat. at 1470 (classified, as amended, at 22 

U.S.C. § 7102(9)).

1522 U.S.C. § 7102(10). Under section 7102(4), the term “commercial sex act” means any 

sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.

16See id. § 7102(9)(A).

17Id. at § 7102(9)(B). 

18DOJ prosecuted trafficking cases under several federal criminal statutes, including the 

involuntary servitude statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1581-1588), the Mann Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 

2421-2424), and labor laws on workplace conditions and compensation (for example, 29 

U.S.C. § 1851 (criminal sanctions for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 

Worker Protection Act and related regulations)).

19Pub. L. No. 106-386, div. A, § 102, 114 Stat. at 1466-91 (classified at 22 U.S.C. § 

7101(a)).
Page 10 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

commercial sex act.20 In addition, the TVPA makes it a crime to use 

certain means, including force, threats of force, physical restraint, or 

serious harm or threats of such harm, to knowingly provide or obtain 

persons for any labor or services.21 TVPA reauthorization acts were 

enacted in 2003, 2006 and 2008; and, in 2013, provisions of the TVPA, its 

reauthorizations, and other related laws, were further amended.22

In 2015, the President signed into law the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 

Act of 2015.23 Among other things, this act required the Attorney General 

to ensure that law enforcement officers and federal prosecutors receive 

anti-trafficking training; required the Federal Judicial Center, the research 

and education agency of the federal judicial system, to provide training for 

judges on ordering restitution for victims of certain trafficking-related 

offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, U.S. Code; mandated that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security implement a human trafficking training 

program for department personnel; required the Attorney General to 

implement and maintain a national strategy for combating human 

trafficking; established the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund to 

supplement existing statutorily authorized grants or activities; and 

amended the federal definition of child abuse to include human trafficking.

As a general principle, the federal government recognizes Native 

American tribes as “distinct, independent political communities” with 

inherent powers of self-government to regulate their “internal and social 

relations,” which include enacting substantive law over internal matters 

 

2018 U.S.C. § 1591(a). The TVPA also makes it illegal to take such actions, and thus 

cause a person under 18 years of age to engage in a commercial sex act, with or without 

the use of force, fraud, or coercion. Id.

21See id. § 1589(a). In addition, it is a federal crime to knowingly recruit, harbor, transport, 

provide, or obtain by any means, any person for labor or services in violation of chapter 77 

of title 18, U.S. Code. Id. at § 1590(a).

22Trafficking 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 (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, tit. XII, 127 Stat. 54, 136-60.

23Pub. L. No. 114-22, 129 Stat. 227. In 2014, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and 

Strengthening Families Act included new requirements on responding to child trafficking 

cases intersecting with child welfare, including application to tribal agencies administering 

or supervising the administration of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. See Pub. L. No. 

113-183, 128 Stat. 1919 (2014). 

Jurisdiction over Crimes 

Committed in Indian 

Country
Page 11 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

and enforcing that law in their own forums.24 However, the Supreme 

Court has recognized that Congress has plenary and exclusive authority 

to regulate or modify the powers of self-government that tribes otherwise 

possess, and has exercised this authority to establish an intricate web of 

jurisdiction over crime in Indian country.25

As determined by relevant statutes, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in 

Indian country depends on several factors, including the Native American 

status of the victim and alleged offender, the nature of the crime, and 

whether jurisdiction has been conferred on a particular entity (e.g., the 

state in which Indian country is located) by, for example, federal treaty or 

statute.26 The General Crimes Act, as amended, extends the criminal 

laws of the federal government into Indian country and generally 

establishes federal criminal jurisdiction where either, but not both, the 

alleged offender or the victim is Native American.27 In addition, federal 

criminal jurisdiction may attach to a crime, such as a human trafficking 

offense committed in Indian country, if it affects interstate or foreign 

 

24See, e.g., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56 (1978) (citing United 

States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975);United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 

381-82 (1886); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 122-123 (1945); United States 

v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 322-24 (1978);Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218 (1897) 

(membership); Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1, 29 (1899) (inheritance rules); United States 

v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602 (1916) (domestic relations);Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 

(1959)). See also 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2) (defining an Indian tribe’s power of selfgovernment). 

25See United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 200-01 (2004) (noting that the Supreme Court 

has traditionally cited the Indian Commerce Clause, U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and the 

Treaty Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, as authority for the federal regulation of 

Indian affairs). 

26See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 (codifying the General Crimes Act, as amended), 1153 

(codifying the Major Crimes Act, as amended, which provides the federal government with 

criminal jurisdiction over Native Americans charged with felony level offenses enumerated 

in the statute, even when the victim is Native American; the tribes retained exclusive 

jurisdiction over other generally misdemeanor level criminal offenses where both parties 

are Native American), and 1162 (codifying State criminal jurisdiction provisions of Public 

Law 280, as amended, which confers criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed in 

Indian country to the governments of six states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

Oregon, and Wisconsin—except as specified by statute, thereby waiving federal 

jurisdiction in Indian country under the General and Major Crimes Acts and subjecting 

Native Americans to prosecution in state court). 

2718 U.S.C. § 1152.
Page 12 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

commerce.28 With the exception of certain circumstances involving 

domestic or dating violence offenses or violations of protection orders, 

tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Native 

American offenders, even if the victim is Native American and the crime 

occurred in Indian country.29 Rather, non-Native American offenders who 

commit crimes against Native Americans may be prosecuted by the 

federal government, or by a state government, where jurisdiction has 

been conferred on a state.30

 

28See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 (sex trafficking in or affecting interstate or foreign 

commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 

2421 (transporting an individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any U.S. territory 

or possession, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution or any other criminal 

sexual activity).

29The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (amending the Indian Civil 

Rights Act of 1968), confers special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over specified 

domestic or dating violence offenses or violations of protection orders, on participating 

tribes that elect to exercise such jurisdiction, concurrent with the jurisdiction of the federal 

government, a state, or both, except that a participating tribe may not exercise this 

jurisdiction if neither the defendant nor the alleged victim is a Native American, or if the 

defendant lacks sufficient ties to the participating tribe. See Pub. L. No. 90-284, tit. II, § 

204, 82 Stat. 73, as added by Pub. L. No. 113-4, tit. IX, § 904, 127 Stat. 54, 120-23 

(classified at 25 U.S.C. § 1304).

30Federal statutes have conferred criminal jurisdiction over Indian country to certain states 

and, in some cases, renounced federal criminal jurisdiction. For example, Public Law 280, 

as amended (18 U.S.C. § 1162), gives states criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed 

by or against Native Americans in the areas of Indian country within six states—Alaska, 

(except the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Islands Reservation), California, 

Minnesota (except the Red Lake reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm 

Springs Reservation), and Wisconsin. See Pub. L. No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588, 588-89 

(1953) (codified, as amended, at 18 U.S.C. § 1162(a)). The trust lands of the Kickapoo 

Traditional Tribe of Texas are also subject to state criminal jurisdiction in accordance with 

section 1162 (see Texas Band of Kickapoo Act, Pub. L. No. 97-429, § 6, 96 Stat. 2269, 

2270 (1983)). In addition, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept retrocession 

of jurisdiction by a state. See 25 U.S.C. § 1323(a). Other laws confer criminal jurisdiction 

over Indian country on states. See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (authorizing a state to assume 

criminal jurisdiction over areas of Indian country with the consent of the Indian tribes 

occupying those areas, though such jurisdiction is to be concurrent with the federal 

government at the request of an Indian tribe and with the Attorney General’s consent). 

See also, e.g., Act of May 31, 1946, ch. 279, 60 Stat. 229 (conferring criminal jurisdiction 

over Devils Lake Sioux Indian Reservation in North Dakota, now Spirit Lake Tribe). 
Page 13 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Several components within DOJ, DHS, and DOI have responsibility for 

investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes in Indian country, 

as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Federal Agencies Responsible for Investigating and Prosecuting Human Trafficking Crimes in Indian Country

The FBI has investigative responsibilities for Indian country where the 

federal government has criminal jurisdiction, and has assigned more than 

100 agents and 40 victim assistance staff, located in 19 of its 56 field 

offices, to work Indian country cases full time. In addition, the FBI’s 

headquarters-based Indian country Crimes Unit promotes liaison and 

intelligence sharing through its Safe Trails Task Forces and working 

Federal Agencies 

Responsible for 

Investigating and 

Prosecuting Human 

Trafficking Crimes in 

Indian Country
Page 14 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

groups and provides training to Indian country law enforcement in 

partnership with DOJ and BIA.31

BIA is statutorily responsible for enforcing federal law and, with the 

consent of the tribe, tribal law in Indian country.32 BIA supports tribes in 

their efforts to ensure public safety and administer justice within Indian 

country, as well as to provide related services directly or to enter into 

contracts or compacts with federally recognized tribes to administer the 

law enforcement program.33 To that end, BIA’s Office of Justice Services 

(OJS) provides direct law enforcement services for 40 tribes. Specifically, 

BIA provides both uniformed police and criminal investigative services for 

32 of these tribes, and criminal investigative services for 8 of these tribes, 

with a total of 301 uniformed police, 62 criminal investigators, and 19 

victim assistance staff. Two hundred three tribes have their own law 

enforcement agencies that are operated by the tribes and funded either 

by contracts or compacts, or by the tribes, themselves. Further, the 

agency is responsible for developing and providing training and technical 

assistance to tribal law enforcement, and for consulting with tribal leaders 

to develop regulatory policies and other actions that affect public safety 

 

31In March 1994, the FBI initiated “Operation Safe Trails” with the Navajo Department of 

Law Enforcement in Flagstaff, Arizona. According to the FBI, the purpose of the operation, 

which would later evolve into the Safe Trails Task Force (STTF) Program, was to unite the 

FBI with other federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in a collaborative 

effort to combat the growth of crime in Indian country. STTFs allow participating agencies 

to combine limited resources and increase investigative coordination in Indian country to 

target violent crime, drugs, gangs, and gaming violations. There are 16 STTFs located in 

11 states (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin). 

3225 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(1).The statute notes that the responsibilities of the BIA’s Office of 

Justice Services are subject to the provisions contained therein and other applicable 

Federal or tribal laws. See id. § 2802(c). 

33Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as 

amended, federally recognized tribes can enter into self-determination contracts and selfgovernance compacts with the federal government to take over administration of certain 

federal programs previously administered on their behalf. Pub. L. No. 93-638, 88 Stat. 

2203 (classified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§5301-10). Self-determination contracts allow 

tribes to assume responsibility for managing the program’s day-to-day operations, with 

BIA providing technical oversight to ensure that the tribe meets contract terms, as 

opposed to BIA administering the program on their behalf. Self-governance compacts 

transfer to tribes the administration of the program and provide the tribes with some 

flexibility in program administration. For both self-determination contracts and selfgovernance compacts, the Secretary of the Interior negotiates and enters into written 

annual funding agreements with the governing body of the tribe, which specifies the 

Interior program that the tribe will administer, the tribe’s and Interior’s obligations, and the 

funds being transferred to the tribe. 
Page 15 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

and justice in Indian country.34 Unlike FBI and BIA, ICE is not generally 

involved in criminal investigations in Indian country but may assist with 

criminal investigations at the request of the tribe, according to ICE HSI 

officials.

Forty-nine of the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) include Indian 

country within their jurisdiction.35 Each of these USAOs has at least one 

Assistant U.S. Attorney appointed as Tribal Liaison. Each Tribal Liaison is 

responsible for most dealings with tribes in their district. Officials noted 

that some districts with large amounts of Indian country have more than 

one Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the position of Tribal Liaison. 

According to Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) 

officials, there are approximately 168 attorneys, including 62 attorneys 

who have been designated as Tribal Liaisons, who handle a significant 

portion of Indian country cases as part of their work duties in these 49 

offices. Also in these offices, there are 78 victim assistance staff, 

including 12 victim assistance staff who are exclusively assigned to work 

Indian country matters, who assist victims and work on cases arising from 

Indian country. However, the other attorneys and victim assistance staff 

may also assist with Indian country cases, when needed. The Civil Rights 

Division and Criminal Division within DOJ may also prosecute human 

trafficking cases; however, officials from these offices stated that any 

Indian country human trafficking prosecutions they conduct would be 

done in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Offices that have jurisdiction 

in the geographical areas where the crime took place.

In addition to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes, 

federal agencies, primarily DOJ and HHS, support efforts to combat 

human trafficking and assist victims.36 Several components within DOJ, 

including the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the Office of 

Justice Programs, which includes the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ), provide grants to help state, local, and tribal law 

 

3425 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(9), (12). 

35One additional USAO—the Eastern District of Virginia—has a federally recognized tribe 

in its jurisdiction, but no Indian country at this time.

36See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)-(h); 22 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1), (f)(1), (2), (3); 42 U.S.C. 

§5714-41; Pub. L. No. 114-22, tit. VII, 129 Stat. at 261-63.

Federal Agencies 

Responsible for 

Administering Grant 

Programs to Address 

Human Trafficking
Page 16 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

enforcement agencies combat human trafficking and to support 

nongovernmental organizations and others in assisting trafficking victims 

or conducting research on human trafficking in the United States. HHS 

provides grant funding to entities to provide services and support for 

trafficking victims, primarily through the Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), which includes the Office on Trafficking in Persons 

(OTIP), the Children’s Bureau, the Family and Youth Services Bureau, 

and the Administration for Native Americans. These services include 

housing, employment, education, food, clothing, job training, medical 

care, and child care. Further, OTIP coordinates anti-trafficking responses 

across multiple systems of care. Specifically, HHS builds the capacity of 

health care providers, child welfare, social service providers and other 

first responders likely to interact with potential victims of trafficking 

through a variety of grant programs.

While Federal 

Agencies Generally 

Maintain Data on 

Human Trafficking 

Cases in Indian 

Country, They Do Not 

Maintain Data on 

Native American 

Status of Victims
Page 17 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

All four agencies that have the authority to investigate or prosecute 

human trafficking in Indian country—FBI, BIA, ICE HSI, and the U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case 

management systems if a human trafficking offense was involved in the 

case. Three of these agencies—FBI, BIA, and the USAOs—also record in 

their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian 

country.37 According to officials from these three agencies, they record 

whether the crime took place in Indian country to help establish whether 

they have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute the crime. ICE HSI 

officials explained that they do not have a field for Indian country in their 

case management system because, unlike BIA and the FBI, ICE HSI is 

not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country; rather, 

ICE HSI would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if 

specifically invited by a tribe to do so.

According to information provided to us by federal agencies that 

investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country, there were 

14 federal investigations and 2 federal prosecutions of human trafficking 

offenses in Indian country from fiscal years 2013 through 2016.38, 39 From 

fiscal years 2013 through 2015, there were over 6,100 federal human 

trafficking investigations and approximately 1,000 federal human 

trafficking prosecutions, overall.40 In certain circumstances, state or tribal 

law enforcement may have jurisdiction to investigate crimes in Indian 

country; therefore, these figures likely do not represent the total number 

of human trafficking-related cases in Indian country. Also, considering 

that human trafficking is known to be an underreported crime, it is unlikely 

that these figures, or any other investigative or prosecutorial data, 

represent the full extent to which human trafficking is occurring in Indian 

country. (See app. I for a description of federally-funded efforts to 

determine the prevalence of human trafficking in the United States and 

 

37BIA started recording offenses as “human trafficking” in its case management system in 

2014. Prior to 2014, human trafficking offenses were recorded under other crimes, such 

as sex crimes. 

38Prosecutions are cases where a charging document has been filed in district court. 

GAO-16-555. 

39According to USAO officials, one of the two prosecutions resulted in a conviction.

40We obtained data on fiscal year 2013 through 2015 human trafficking investigations and 

prosecutions as part of our prior work; fiscal year 2016 data were not available at the time. 

See GAO-16-555. “Cases prosecuted” is when all appeals for all defendants in a case 

have been exhausted or when an office has relinquished its responsibility for the 

remaining appeal.

Three of the Four 

Investigative and 

Prosecutorial Agencies 

Maintain Data on Human 

Trafficking Cases in Indian 

Country
Page 18 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

applicability of those efforts to the Native American population.) Table 1 

provides the number of federal human trafficking investigations and 

prosecutions in Indian country, by agency, from fiscal years 2013 through 

2016.

Table 1: Number of Federal Investigations and Prosecutions Involving Human Trafficking Offenses in Indian Country, Fiscal 

Years 2013 - 2016 

Department Agency

Number of

cases involving human

trafficking in Indian country

Investigative 

agencies

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2a

Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) —b

Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 12

Prosecutorial 

agencies

Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 2

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of the Interior data. | GAO-17-325

a

The FBI has three investigative components: Civil Rights Unit, Indian Country Crime Unit, and the 

Violent Crimes Against Children Program. The FBI’s Civil Rights Unit reported 2 investigations 

involving human trafficking offenses in Indian Country during fiscal year 2013-2016. 

b

ICE HSI does not have a data field for Indian country in their case management system and w as not 

able to determine the number of investigations in Indian country.

Three of the four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human 

trafficking-related crimes do not require their agents or attorneys to 

consistently collect or record the race or ethnicity, including Native 

American status, of victims in their cases. Therefore, the total number of 

federal human trafficking investigations and prosecutions that involved 

Native American victims is unknown. Agents and attorneys may 

voluntarily collect this information and record it in their case management 

systems when there is a designated data field.41 The FBI and USAOs that 

have Indian country in their jurisdiction are statutorily required to collect 

and report information on victims’ Native American status when they 

decline to refer or prosecute an Indian country case, but not otherwise.42

Based on the limited data that were available, federal agencies initiated a 

minimum of 6 human trafficking investigations that involved Native 

 

41For Indian country cases only, the case management systems for FBI and BIA have 

data fields to collect victim race or Native American status. 

42Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 101-379, § 10, 104 Stat. 473, 477-78 

(1990), as amended by Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA), Pub. L. No. 111-211, tit. 

II, subtit. A, § 212, 124 Stat. 2258, 2267-68 (classified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. § 2809).

Most of the Federal 

Investigative and 

Prosecutorial Agencies 

that Address Human 

Trafficking Do Not 

Consistently Collect Native 

American Status of Victims 

in Their Cases
Page 19 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

American victims from fiscal years 2013 to 2016—the FBI Civil Rights 

Unit initiated 5 investigations and BIA initiated 1. Table 2 shows the 

policies of the investigative and prosecutorial agencies with respect to 

collecting information on victims’ Native American status.

Table 2: Federal Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies’ Policies on Collecting Victims’ Native American Status in Criminal 

Cases

Agency

Required to collect information on 

victim’s Native American status

Investigative agencies

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) In limited circumstancesa

Homeland Security Investigations No

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Yesb

Prosecutorial agencies U.S. Attorney’s Offices In limited circumstancesc

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of the Interior data. | GAO-17-325

a

Federal law requires the FBI to compile annual investigation data, including the victim’s Native 

American status, for cases involving alleged crimes in Indian country that it decides not to refer for 

prosecution. See 25 U.S.C. § 2809(a)(2). Otherwise, the FBI does not collect information on the 

victim’s Native American status.

b

The BIA records the tribal affiliation of victims, w hich is related to Native American status.

c

Federal law requires the Department of Justice to compile annual prosecution data, including the 

victim’s Native American status, for case declinations related to alleged crimes occurring in Indian 

country. See 25 U.S.C. § 2809(a)(4). Otherwise, U.S. Attorney’s Offices are not required to collect 

information on the victim’s Native American status. Also, U.S. Attorney’s Offices that do not have any 

Indian country in their jurisdiction do not have the capability to enter a victim’s Native American status 

in their case management system.

Federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies provided two primary 

reasons why they do not collect information on the Native American 

status of victims, including concerns about relevance of Native American 

status to the substance of the case and victim privacy. For example, 

officials told us that Native American status of victims is only relevant for 

Indian country cases because it is necessary for establishing which law 

enforcement agency has jurisdiction over the case. According to EOUSA

officials, Native American status has no impact on whether the federal 

government can investigate or prosecute cases outside of Indian country. 

Additionally, EOUSA officials said that when prosecutors have to 

determine the Native American status of victims in Indian country, they do 

not base that determination on the victim’s appearance or self-reporting. 

Instead, prosecutors must review tribal enrollment documents or obtain 

information on the victim’s blood quantum, and carrying out this process 
Page 20 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

for victims outside of Indian country would be arduous.43 Similarly, FBI 

officials reported that they only collect information that is necessary for 

the investigation, which does not include the victim’s race or Native 

American status. Further, officials from all of the investigative and 

prosecutorial agencies raised concerns related to either the sensitivity of 

asking victims about their race or Native American status or collecting 

additional personal information about the victim that could make them 

identifiable to the defendant or others during the discovery phase of a 

criminal trial.44

 

43According to BIA, “blood quantum” refers to the degree of American Indian or Alaska 

Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses. Blood 

quantum is one means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or 

Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person’s knowledge of his or her tribe’s culture, 

history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself 

or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, may also be considered. 

44The discovery phase is the pretrial evidence gathering process in which the federal 

prosecutor is to, among other things, determine what information is legally subject to 

disclosure to the defendant.

At Least 50 Federal 

Grant Programs Can 

Be Used to Address 

Human Trafficking in 

Indian Country or of 

Native Americans, but 

Number of Native 

American Victims 

Served Is Unknown
Page 21 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

DOJ, HHS, and DHS administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal 

years 2014 through 2016 that could help address human trafficking in 

Indian country or of Native Americans.45 Of the 50 grant programs, 45

specifically mention addressing human trafficking as an allowable use of 

funding and identify tribal entities as eligible recipients. The remaining five 

specifically mention assisting Native American crime victims as an 

allowable use, although human trafficking is not explicitly identified, as 

shown in figure 4 below. However, the total number of Native American 

human trafficking victims who received services under these grant 

programs is unknown.

Figure 4: Federal Grant Programs that Could Address Human Trafficking in Indian 

country or of Native Americans for which Funding Was Awarded in Fiscal Years 

2014 - 2016

Of the 45 grant programs that explicitly mention addressing human 

trafficking as an allowable use, 2 exclusively address human trafficking of 

Native Americans. In fiscal year 2016, OVC established two Project 

Beacon grant programs that are designed to increase the quantity and 

quality of services available to Native American victims of sex trafficking 

who reside in urban areas. One program offers qualified grant award 

 

45Forty-one grant programs were administered by DOJ, 12 programs were administered 

by HHS, and 1 program was administered by DHS. See appendix II for a complete 

breakdown of the 54 grant programs byallowable use.

DOJ, HHS, and DHS 

Grant Programs that 

Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian 

Country or of Native 

Americans Can Be Used 

to Foster Collaboration 

and Provide Training and 

Victim Assistance, among 

Other Things
Page 22 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

recipients the opportunity to develop comprehensive, culturally 

appropriate services for Native American victims, while the other program 

was intended to provide an award to a qualified organization to provide 

training and technical assistance to organizations that received a direct 

services award. OVC made three awards under the direct services 

Project Beacon program fiscal year 2016, but was unable to make an 

award under the Project Beacon training and technical assistance 

program.

The 50 grant programs provide funding for various categories of activities, 

including collaboration activities, research, victim services, public 

awareness and training or technical assistance. A breakdown of the 

allowable uses is outlined in figure 5 below. (See app. II for a list of all 

grant programs and how the funding can be used.)

Figure 5: Allowable Activities of Federal Grant Programs that Could Be Used to 

Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans in Fiscal 

Years 2013 - 2016

Note: Federal grant programs generally provide for more than one allow able use.

Collaboration and partnerships: 42 of the 50 grant programs allow funds 

to be used for collaboration between or within law enforcement and 

service providers through mechanisms such as task forces, coalitions, 

and partnerships. For example, the Tribal Governments Program, 

administered by OVW, strengthens the tribal criminal justice system’s 

response to human trafficking of Native American women by facilitating 

collaborative agreements between tribal law enforcement and tribal 

prosecution, and federal, state, or local partners to address sex 

trafficking, among other crimes. Another example is ACF’s Domestic 

Victims of Human Trafficking grant program, which requires grantees to 
Page 23 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

provide a strategy for expanding victim service partnerships to enhance 

community response, including victims in historically marginalized 

populations like tribal communities.

Data, Research, and Evaluation: 19 of the 50 grant programs include an 

element of data collection on human trafficking cases, research on human 

trafficking, or evaluation of best practices. OVC’s Fellowship Program

was established in 2002. Fellowships are competitively awarded through 

the OVC grant process. Fellows provide direct operational assistance to 

OVC in designing and developing innovative or enhanced service 

initiatives, management systems, training programs, capacity-building 

initiatives, and program evaluation efforts.

Victim services: 21 of the 50 grant programs can be used to provide 

services directly to victims of human trafficking, including Native 

Americans. Services include housing, health care, mental health and 

substance abuse services, and legal services. For example, the Social 

and Economic Development Strategies grant program, administered by 

ACF, can be used to develop and implement culturally appropriate 

strategies to provide outreach and services for Native American victims of 

sex trafficking.

Public awareness: 26 of the 50 grants may be used to raise public 

awareness of human trafficking. For example, OVW administers the 

Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions program, which 

works to design and conduct public education campaigns to increase the 

awareness of crimes against Native American women, including sex 

trafficking.

Training and technical assistance: 40 of the 50 grant programs may be 

used to provide training and technical assistance to service providers or 

law enforcement stakeholders on elements of identifying and serving 

victims of human trafficking. For example, the Defending Childhood 

American Indian/Alaska Native Policy Initiative program, administered by 

OJJDP, awards funding to entities that will design and implement training 

and technical assistance for tribal sites according to their needs.
Page 24 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Among the 21 grant programs administered by DOJ and HHS that 

allowed for the provision of victim services, the number of Native 

American human trafficking victims who received services is unknown 

because agencies generally did not require grantees to report the Native 

American status of victims served.46 For example, 3 of the 21 grant 

programs—all of which are administered by OVW—currently require 

grantees to report the Native American status of victims served; that is, if 

the information is available and can be provided without compromising 

the victim’s safety or confidentiality.47 The remaining 18 grant programs 

do not require grantees to report the Native American status of victims 

served; however, 5 of these programs exclusively fund services for Native 

American victims, in which case the Native American status of victims 

served would have been determined for the purpose of program eligibility. 

However, even when grantees are required to report the Native American 

status of victims served or it is inherent in their reporting, grantees are 

only required to do so in the aggregate and not by the type of crime to 

which the victim was subjected. Therefore, the grantee data cannot be 

used to determine the number of Native American human trafficking 

victims that were served. Table 3 describes whether the agencies and 

components require grantees to report the Native American status of 

victims served.

 

46The DHS grant program that we identified does not include providing services to victims 

as an allowable use of funding; instead, the funding can be used to support collaboration 

and partnerships as well as data, research, and evaluation efforts.

47OVW’s FY15 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Purpose Area 5: Tribal Governments 

Program, FY 15 Tribal Sexual Assault Services Program, and FY16 Consolidated Grant 

Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Assault and 

Engage Men and Boys as Allies are grant programs that allow for the provision of victim 

services as well as other activities, and address domestic and dating violence, sexual 

assault, stalking, and sex trafficking. Grantees under these programs are required to 

submit semi-annual progress reports, which include demographic information on victims 

served, types of victimizations for which victims needed services, services provided, and 

more. Grantees are expected to report demographic data, but only to the extent that they 

obtain these data in the course of providing services that respond to victims’ immediate 

safety needs and can provide the data without compromising victim confidentiality. 

DOJ and HHS Do Not 

Require Grantees to 

Report Data on the 

Number of Native 

American Victims Served
Page 25 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Table 3: Native American Status Reporting Requirements for Federal Grant Programs that Provide Services for Native 

American Human Trafficking Victims 

Agency Component

Number of the 21 grant 

programs that provide 

services for victims 

Require grantees to 

report number of 

Native American 

victims served?

Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 4 Yesa

Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) 9 Nob

Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) 3 No

Department of Health and 

Human Services

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

5 Noc

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-17-325

a

OVW does not currently collect demographic data on victims served for 1 of the 4 programs, the 

Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program, but plans to update the progress 

report form for this program to capture demographic data.

b

Beginning in fiscal year 2017, OVC w ill provide an option for recipients of human trafficking-specific 

grant programs to report the race and ethnicity of victims served.

c

Currently, ACF requires its grantees to report some victim demographics, but not the victim’s race.

In fiscal year 2015, HHS began its Human Trafficking Data Collection 

Project to establish uniform data collection across OTIP grant programs. 

According to HHS officials, the intent was to ultimately develop an 

interoperable platform that would ensure standard collection of data 

among a broader group of HHS grantees—including grantees that receive 

funding from other HHS components—that provide services to victims of 

trafficking and populations at high risk for trafficking.48 Grantees will be 

asked to report data on demographics and predisposing factors, services

provided, costs of victim and survivor care, and unmet service needs. 

This would include capturing data on victims’ race and ethnicity, such as 

Native American status and tribal affiliation. HHS expects to pilot test 

these uniform data elements and make them available for public 

comment in fiscal year 2017, after which HHS may make revisions, 

 

48In addition to OTIP grantees, HHS hopes to standardize human trafficking data 

collection among grantees from other HHS components including other ACF divisions, 

Indian Health Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. 
Page 26 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

submit the revised tool to the Office of Management and Budget for

review, and then make the tool available to grantees.49

According to OVC and OJJDP officials, they do not require grantees to 

collect and report victims’ Native American status because it is generally 

not an eligibility requirement for receiving victim services. They also 

raised concerns about whether including the victims’ race or Native 

American status in grant reports, which could be made available to the 

public, could compromise the victims’ confidentiality.50 According to 

OJJDP, its grantees are required to submit descriptive demographic data 

for youth victims served, and those data are included in OJJDP’s 

performance measurement system. However, this system does not 

include data on the Native American status of youth victims served; 

rather, grantees identify whether or not they provided services to any 

Native American youth victims during the reporting period. According to 

OVC, beginning in fiscal year 2017, OVC provided an optional category in 

the Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) to allow grantees 

of human trafficking-specific grant programs—that is, grant programs 

funded by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—to report the race or 

Native American status of victims served. However, OVC does not 

require grantees to report the race of human trafficking victims because 

race is not a performance measure for OVC grantees. Also, OVC officials 

stated that in communities with few members of a particular race, if 

grantees have just one victim of that race in their data, people may 

correctly guess the identity of that victim. Similarly, OVW noted the 

importance of balancing the need for monitoring data with the provision of 

timely, accessible, and confidential services. OVW officials stated that 

OVW maintains this balance by collecting an aggregate number of Native 

American victims served during each 6-month reporting period rather than 

 

49Section 3506(c)(2)(A of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires federal agencies 

to provide an opportunity for the public and affected agencies to comment on any 

proposed data collection projects. See Pub. L. No. 104-13, § 2, 109 Stat. 163, 171-76 

(codified, as amended, at 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

50 Service providers are required to protect the confidentiality and privacy of persons 

receiving services. See 42 U.S.C. § 13925(b)(2)(A). Without a victim’s consent, service 

providers are not to disclose, reveal, or release any personally identifying information or 

individual information collected in connection with services, regardless of how the 

information is protected. See id. § 13925(b)(2)(B). Service providers may share nonpersonally identifying data in the aggregate regarding client services and non-personally 

identifying demographic information in order to comply with reporting, evaluation, or data 

collection requirements; however, personally identifying information may not be shared in 

furtherance of such compliance. Id. at § 13925(b)(2)(D).
Page 27 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

collecting this information for each type of victimization—including sex 

trafficking—which OVW officials believe could jeopardize victim 

confidentiality, especially in rural tribal communities. We understand the 

importance of maintaining victim confidentiality, in which case for 

grantees concerned that reporting the number of Native American human 

trafficking victims served could reveal the identity of those victims, OVC, 

OJJDP, and OVW could consider exempting them from any such 

reporting requirement on a case-by-case basis. 

Also, while Native American status is generally not a factor for 

determining whether a victim can receive services or relevant for current 

performance measures, it may be a factor for determining how best to 

assist this particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal 

Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the 

United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research 

efforts for vulnerable populations, which include Native Americans, is an 

area for improvement for the federal government. The plan also states 

that vulnerable populations, including Native Americans, are often underidentified as victims, which leads to unreliable statistics. The plan states 

that the federal government acknowledges that it currently does not have 

enough information on human trafficking and service provision to Native 

Americans and other vulnerable populations to begin making 

recommendations on evidence-based practices to the field. It goes on to 

state that vulnerable populations require more attention and focus so that 

responses to human trafficking are effective and federal agencies are 

committed to spending the time and resources to learn more. The plan 

establishes goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable 

populations.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

quality information should be used to achieve objectives based on 

relevant data from reliable sources.51 Agencies are expected to identify 

the information requirements needed to meet their objectives and on a 

timely basis obtain the relevant data based on the requirements. Without 

collecting data on the Native American status of victims served, federal 

agencies will not know the extent to which they are achieving 

government-wide strategic goals to provide and improve services to 

vulnerable populations, including Native American crime victims.

 

51GAO-14-704G. 
Page 28 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

In addition, awareness about whether a victim of human trafficking is 

Native American can be helpful to ensure culturally appropriate practices 

are made available in the healing and recovery process. HHS’ 

Administration for Native Americans reported that there is a need for 

culturally relevant and trauma-informed approaches when assisting 

victims.52 For example, using women’s circles and other culturally 

appropriate practices have proven helpful in the healing process for 

Native American victims. According to a Trafficking in Indian Country brief 

released by the National Congress for American Indians, many Native 

American human trafficking victims felt they owed their survival to Native 

cultural practices and most wished for Native healing approaches to be 

integrated with mainstream services.53

Native Americans experience several risk factors that make them 

vulnerable to becoming victims of human trafficking. Federal agencies 

responsible for addressing human trafficking have acknowledged that 

Native Americans are a vulnerable population and have set agency and 

government-wide goals to help ensure public safety in Indian country and 

protect Native Americans from human trafficking and other crimes. 

Federal agencies that have the authority to investigate and prosecute 

human trafficking crimes in Indian country generally record in their case 

management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. 

They do not always record the Native American status of victims, 

however, because that information may not generally be relevant to the 

case or it may have the potential to identify particular victims. Native 

American status may have relevance with respect to the provision of 

services, nonetheless. While victim confidentiality must be protected 

accordingly, the absence of data collection by granting agencies

regarding the Native American status of human trafficking victims served 

hinders their ability to determine whether their victim assistance goals are 

being met. It may also make it difficult to determine where to focus their 

efforts on providing culturally appropriate services that have been shown 

to aid in the healing and restoration of Native American victims of crime. 

 

52Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Native Americans, 

Recognizing and Responding to Human Trafficking among American Indian, Alaska 

Native and Pacific Islander Communities. (January 29, 2015) (Revised November 18, 

2015).

53National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center, Human Trafficking: 

Trends and Responses across Indian Country, Tribal Insights Brief, Spring 2016.

Conclusions
Page 29 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

To help ensure that DOJ is contributing to efforts to improve data 

collection and service provision to Native Americans, we recommend that:

• the Director of OVW require grantees to report the number of human 

trafficking victims served using grant funding, and, as appropriate, the

Native American status of those victims; and

• the Assistant Attorney General for OJP direct OVC and OJJDP to 

require their grantees to report the number of human trafficking 

victims served using grant funding, and, as appropriate, the Native 

American status of those victims.

We provided a copy of our report to HHS, DHS, DOI, and DOJ for review 

and comment. DHS and DOI stated that they did not have any comments 

on our report. HHS and DOJ provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. DOJ also provided written comments, which 

are reproduced in appendix III. 

DOJ partially agreed with our recommendations. In its comments, DOJ 

indicated a willingness to implement the first part of the 

recommendations, which is to require grantees to report the number of 

human trafficking victims served with grant funding. However, DOJ 

disagreed with the second part of the recommendations, which is to 

require grantees to report the Native American status of those victims. As 

we stated in our report, OVC currently requires its grantees to report the 

number of human trafficking victims served through the Trafficking 

Information Management System (TIMS). According to DOJ, OJJDP 

could require grantees for its human trafficking-related grant programs to 

report the number of human trafficking victims served through OJJDP’s 

Data Collection and Technical Assistance Tool (DCTAT). Similarly, DOJ 

stated that OVW will begin asking grantees to include the number of sex 

trafficking victims served in their grantee progress reports.

However, DOJ identified several reasons why OVC, OJJDP, and OVW 

should not require grantees to report the Native American status of 

human trafficking victims served, including concerns about overburdening 

grantees, having a chilling effect on the delivery of services, and victim 

confidentiality. With respect to overburdening grantees, DOJ stated that it 

would be hard to justify collecting Native American status solely for 

victims of human trafficking and not for victims of others types of crime. 

Therefore, according to DOJ, implementing our recommendation would 

lead the components to collect demographic information for all types of 

victimizations, thereby greatly increasing the burden on service providers. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 30 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

We believe that collecting demographic information on victims of all types 

of crimes could be very informative; however, our recommendation is that 

DOJ collect demographic data specific to its human trafficking programs, 

as appropriate. DOJ has identified combating human trafficking as a 

priority for the department, and the Federal Strategic Action Plan on 

Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States identifies 

Native Americans as a vulnerable population. Therefore, we believe that 

collecting additional information specifically on Native American human 

trafficking victims is justifiable. In addition, based on preliminary results of 

a survey we conducted as part of a related review, it appears that some 

of the DOJ- and HHS-funded victim service providers do collect 

information on the Native American status of victims served by type of 

victimization. We surveyed 315 victim service providers that received 

funding from either DOJ or HHS in fiscal year 2015; 162 of the providers 

responded. Of the 162, 67 reported that they provided services to at least 

one human trafficking victim, and 58 were able to tell us whether any of 

the human trafficking victims they served were Native American; 9 were 

not able to tell us. 

Concerning the potential chilling effect on service delivery, according to 

DOJ, asking victims about their race could cause confusion, fear, or make 

the individual less likely to engage in services. Therefore, DOJ is opposed 

to requiring victims to disclose their race, but acknowledged that if victims 

voluntarily disclose this information, grantees could include victims’ race 

when reporting to DOJ. Similarly, with respect to victim confidentiality, 

DOJ stated that collecting Native American status by type of victimization 

creates a much greater—and unnecessary—risk that a particular victim 

could be publicly identified, especially in rural tribal communities. Also, 

according to DOJ, OVW grantees are statutorily prohibited from reporting 

a victim’s personally identifying information to OVW for grant monitoring 

purposes. It is not our position that victims should be required to disclose 

their race in order to receive services, and that certainly was not the intent 

of our recommendation. However, we do think there are situations where 

it may be appropriate to ask the victim about their race. We also 

understand that there may be instances where reporting the Native 

American status of human trafficking victims could, on its own, or in 

conjunction with other information, identify individual victims. As we stated 

in our report, the components could exempt grantees from reporting 

Native American status on a case-by-case basis if such instances arise. 

To help ensure that our recommendation is not interpreted to mean that 

DOJ must require human trafficking victims to disclose their Native 

American status or that grantees must report Native American status, 

even if doing so significantly increases the risk that the victim could be 
Page 31 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

identified, we modified our recommendation. Specifically, we clarified that 

agencies should require grantees to report the Native American status of 

human trafficking victims “as appropriate.” 

DOJ identified other reasons why requiring grantees to report the Native 

American status of human trafficking victims was not necessary. One 

benefit to collecting this information that we cited in our report is that DOJ 

would be able to help ensure that Native American victims are receiving 

culturally appropriate services. However, DOJ stated that OVC and OVW 

already use grantee progress reports to monitor whether grantees are 

providing culturally appropriate services and to identify promising 

practices for doing so. Further, DOJ stated that it funds training and 

technical assistance for grantees on providing culturally appropriate 

services to Native Americans. We are encouraged by DOJ’s efforts 

related to ensuring that Native Americans are receiving culturallyappropriate services, and we think having information on which of their 

grantees are serving Native American victims, and how many victims 

there are, could enhance their efforts. 

Finally, DOJ stated that the utility of the data that grantees would report 

on Native American status of human trafficking victims would be limited 

because it would not be statistically relevant. Specifically, grantee data 

would not identify all Native American human trafficking victims, but just 

those served with DOJ funding. DOJ said that efforts underway by the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice would 

produce more meaningful data. We recognize that grantee data cannot 

be used to determine the prevalence of human trafficking of Native 

Americans nationwide. That was never the intent of the recommendation, 

especially considering the challenges that DOJ and others have 

previously identified with respect to estimating prevalence of human 

trafficking, in general. Rather, we recognized that the federal strategic 

action plan articulated a need for more information on Native American 

victims of human trafficking, and collecting information on the extent to 

which DOJ funding is being used to provide services to this population is 

an incremental step towards bridging this information gap.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the 

appropriate congressional committees; the Attorney General; the 

Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the 
Page 32 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Interior. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@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 IV. 

Gretta L. Goodwin

Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to 

Develop Methodologies to Determine 

Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and 

Applicability to Native American Populations

Page 33 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Federal agencies have several efforts under way that either assess the 

prevalence of human trafficking for a particular subgroup of the population 

or aim to develop a methodology or tool that could be used to determine 

prevalence, in general. From fiscal years 2012 through 2015, the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Trafficking in Persons grants to San 

Diego State University, Abt Associates, Inc. and Northeastern University 

for this purpose. While none of the current efforts are designed to 

determine prevalence among Native Americans, specifically, grantees 

told us some of the methodologies could have potential to be used for 

such an effort.1

Between 2009 and 2015, San Diego State University has been involved 

in three projects to determine prevalence of labor and sex trafficking for 

specific populations. The Labor Trafficking among Migrant Workers in 

North Carolina project sought to identify indicators that could be used by 

state and local law enforcement as signals that labor trafficking may be 

taking place in their communities. The goals of the study were to: (1) 

document the characteristics and indicators of labor trafficking, including 

component crimes, collateral crimes, and other community impacts; and 

(2) provide law enforcement with actionable knowledge to help identify 

labor trafficking. Researchers interviewed 380 farmworkers, who were 

attending migrant worker and Hispanic/Latino festivals or living at farm 

labor camps, and collected data on demographic characteristics (age, 

sex, race/ethnicity), citizenship and language spoken at home, 

unemployment and agricultural business patterns, crime, communicable 

disease, and pregnancy and infant mortality. According to researchers, 

these data allowed them to develop a comprehensive description of 

farmworkers who are being exploited and may be in labor trafficking 

situations. The study was completed in August 2013.

The second San Diego State University project, Looking for a Hidden 

Population: Trafficking of Migrant Laborers in San Diego County, applied 

 

1Throughout this report, we generally use the term “Native American” in reference to an 

American Indian or Alaska Native, including persons who have identified themselves as 

Native American or individuals whom federal agencies have identified as Native American 

based on relevant legal authorities and agency procedures. The terms “Indian” and 

“Alaska Native” are defined under federal law for various purposes. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 

3102(16); 20 U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(1); 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301(4), 1903(3), 2201(2), 4103(10), 

5129; 42 U.S.C. § 13925(a)(13); 43 U.S.C. § 1602(b). The U.S. Census Bureau has noted 

that “American Indian or Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in any of the 

original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who 

maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to 

Develop Methodologies to Determine 

Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and 

Applicability to Native American Populations
Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to 

Develop Methodologies to Determine 

Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and 

Applicability to Native American Populations

Page 34 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

respondent-driven sampling and unique access to migrant communities in 

San Diego County, California, to produce valid estimates on the scope of 

labor trafficking activities in one of the largest Spanish-speaking 

immigrant destinations. 2 The study found that 30 percent of 

undocumented migrant laborers were victims of trafficking, 55 percent 

were victims of other abuses, and about half of these victimization 

experiences occurred within the past 12 months. The study found that the 

rate of trafficking violations varied markedly across business sectors that 

typically hire unauthorized migrant workers. The construction and 

janitorial services sector had the most reported trafficking violations and 

labor abuses across these business sectors.

The third project, Sex Trafficking in Tijuana, Mexico, involved in-depth 

interviews with semi-structured and open-ended questions, field 

observations, and conversations with major players in the prostitution 

business, law enforcement and advocacy groups. The main emphasis in 

the recruitment of participants in the project was to maximize the range 

and variety of the search for discernable patterns of trafficking activities 

and the operation of the sex industry in Tijuana. According to 

documentation from the study, although hundreds of interviews were 

conducted with a wide variety of individuals, the study does not intend to 

produce statistical estimates about the scope of sex trafficking activities 

or any other aspect of the sex industry in Tijuana. The identified cases of 

sex trafficking happening in Tijuana were limited to individual pimps (male 

and female) who were adept at seeking out women in vulnerable 

situations and controlling them through emotional manipulation, social 

isolation, and/or violence.

In 2015, NIJ also awarded a Trafficking in Persons grant to Abt 

Associates. The purpose of Abt’s research project, Advancing Human 

Trafficking Prevalence Estimation, is to develop a methodology to 

calculate prevalence of human trafficking.3 Abt has selected county-level 

sites to test a methodology that, if successful, could be used to estimate 

human trafficking at the city, state, or national level. Further, according to 

Abt, if targeted appropriately or conducted on a large enough scale, the 

 

2Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS), combines “snowball sampling” with a mathematical 

model that weights the sample to compensate for the fact that the sample was collected in 

a non-random way.

3GAO, Human Trafficking: Agencies Have Taken Steps to Assess Prevalence, Address 

Victim Issues, and Avoid Grant Duplication, GAO-16-555 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 

2016).
Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to 

Develop Methodologies to Determine 

Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and 

Applicability to Native American Populations

Page 35 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

methodology could be used to estimate human trafficking of Native 

Americans or in Indian country.4 Abt researcher told us they plan to use a 

screening tool developed by the Vera Institute of Justice to determine 

how many individuals who are in jails, shelters, or have recently visited 

emergency rooms are human trafficking victims (i.e., potentially unknown 

human trafficking victims). Then they plan to compare this number to the 

known human trafficking victims to see if this approach identifies 

additional victims. Abt is currently in the first year of a 3-year plan.

The Abt researcher noted that to accurately measure the prevalence of 

human trafficking in Indian country using a similar methodology, a study 

must oversample the Native American population. Based on the small 

sampling size being used to test the current methodology, Abt told us the 

current study can likely report the number of Native Americans and the 

number of human trafficking victims on its test sites, but would not be able 

to generalize results from this study to the entire Native American 

population.

Northeastern University’s research project, Capturing Human Trafficking 

Victimization through Crime Reporting is a 3-year study to test a multiple 

system list estimation methodology to estimate the prevalence of human 

trafficking in three sites, which are expected to be selected by midOctober 2016.5 According to the program manager, this methodology 

consists of comparing human trafficking reporting from the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Reporting System to the data systems of non-law enforcement 

entities─ welfare, victim service providers, domestic violence shelter, 

licensing and inspection agencies, among others. Any differences or 

similarities across the data would help determine whether victims are 

being captured in multiple areas (systems) and the results could be used 

to develop prevalence estimates for the tests sites. According to the 

program manager, if the methodology works in the test sites, the U.S. 

government could replicate it to estimate prevalence nationally or at other 

levels of government.

 

4Federal law defines the term “Indian country” as all land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all dependent Indian 

communities within U.S. borders, and all existing Indian allotments, including any rights-ofway running through an allotment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151.

5At the time of our review, NIJ had not yet received a status update from Northeastern 

University. Therefore, we do not have information on which locations were selected for 

this study. 
Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to 

Develop Methodologies to Determine 

Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and 

Applicability to Native American Populations

Page 36 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

The coordinators of these research projects noted that there are major 

obstacles that hinder the estimation of human trafficking in the United 

States, including a lack of systematic information about the existence of 

victims in areas where human trafficking activities are known to exist. Abt 

and San Diego State University stated that even though their 

methodologies are not specifically designed to assess prevalence of 

human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of 

location, their approaches could be modified to achieve that goal. 

However, Abt noted that to correctly measure the prevalence of human 

trafficking in Indian country, a study must oversample the Native 

American population.
Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans

Page 37 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Grant Program

Agency 

Component

Collaboration 

and 

Partnerships

Data, 

Research, 

and 

Evaluation

Provision of 

Services 

Directly to 

Victims

Public 

Awareness

Training or 

Technical 

Assistance

Exclusive to 

Tribal Entities

Department of Health and Human Services

(8 Grant Programs)

Family Violence 

Prevention and 

Services Program 

Grant to Tribes

Administration 

for Children 

and Families 

(ACF)

— — X X — X 

Social and Economic 

Development 

Strategies

ACF

— — X X — X 

Demonstration 

Grants for Domestic 

Victims of Human 

Trafficking 

ACF

X — X — X — 

Demonstration 

Grants for Domestic 

Victims of Severe 

Forms of Human 

Trafficking 

ACF

X — X X — — 

Grants to Address 

Trafficking within the 

Child Welfare 

Population

ACF

X X — X X — 

National Human 

Trafficking Resource 

Center

ACF

X — X X X — 

Rescue & Restore 

Regional Program

ACF X — — X X — 

Expansion Grant for 

Safe Place Runaway 

and Homeless Youth 

Training and 

Technical 

Assistance Center

ACF

X — — — X — 

Department of Justice

(41 Grant programs)

Coordinated Tribal 

Assistance 

Coordination 

Purpose Area 5: 

Tribal Governments 

Program 

Office on 

Violence 

Against 

Women 

(OVW)

X — X X X X 

Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans 
Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans

Page 38 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Grant Program

Agency 

Component

Collaboration 

and 

Partnerships

Data, 

Research, 

and 

Evaluation

Provision of 

Services 

Directly to 

Victims

Public 

Awareness

Training or 

Technical 

Assistance

Exclusive to 

Tribal Entities

Tribal Domestic 

Violence and Sexual 

Assault Coalitions

Program 

OVW

X — X X X X 

National Indian 

Country Clearing 

House on Sexual 

Assault

OVW

— — — — X X 

Tribal Sexual 

Assault Services 

Program 

OVW

— — X X — X 

Technical 

Assistance Initiative 

Solicitation

OVW

X — — X X — 

Consolidated Grant 

Program to Address 

Children and Youth 

Experiencing 

Domestic and 

Sexual Assault and 

Engage Men and 

Boys as Allies

OVW

X — X X — — 

FY16 Project 

Beacon: Increasing 

Services to 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 

Victims of Sex 

Trafficking 

Office for 

Victims of 

Crime (OVC)

X — X X X X 

FY16 Project 

Beacon Training and 

Technical 

Assistance Program

OVC

— — — — X X 

FY 15 Coordinated 

Tribal Assistance 

Coordination 

Purpose Area 6: 

Children’s Justice 

Act Partnerships for 

Indian Communities 

OVC

X X X X X X 

FY 15 Coordinated 

Tribal Assistance 

Coordination 

Purpose Area 7: 

Comprehensive 

Tribal Victim 

Assistance Program

OVC

X X X X X X 
Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans

Page 39 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Grant Program

Agency 

Component

Collaboration 

and 

Partnerships

Data, 

Research, 

and 

Evaluation

Provision of 

Services 

Directly to 

Victims

Public 

Awareness

Training or 

Technical 

Assistance

Exclusive to 

Tribal Entities

Vision 21: National 

Resource Centers 

for Victim Research, 

Evaluation, and 

Reaching 

Underserved Victims

OVC

X X — X X — 

Fellowship Program OVC X X — — X —

A Pathway to 

Justice, Healing, and 

Hope: Addressing 

Polyvictimizations in 

a Family Justice 

Center Setting 

Demonstration 

Initiative

OVC

X X — — X — 

Comprehensive 

Services for Victims 

of Human Trafficking 

Program 

OVC

X — X X X — 

Services for Victims 

of Human Trafficking

OVC X — X X X — 

Specialized Services 

for Victims of Human 

Trafficking 

OVC

X — X X X — 

Training and 

Technical 

Assistance on 

Comprehensive 

Legal Services for 

Human Trafficking 

Victims

OVC

— — — — X — 

Service, Support & 

Justice: A Strategy 

to Enhance Law 

Enforcement 

Response to Victims 

Demonstration 

Project 

OVC

X — — — — — 

Sexual Assault 

Response Team 

(SART) Toolkit 2.0 

OVC

— X — — — — 

Vision 21 Victim 

Legal Assistance 

Networks 

OVC

X X X — X — 
Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans

Page 40 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Grant Program

Agency 

Component

Collaboration 

and 

Partnerships

Data, 

Research, 

and 

Evaluation

Provision of 

Services 

Directly to 

Victims

Public 

Awareness

Training or 

Technical 

Assistance

Exclusive to 

Tribal Entities

Vision 21 Innovation 

Grants: Enhancing 

and Transforming 

Services for Victims 

of Crime

OVC

— — — X X — 

Vision 21: Law 

Enforcement and the 

Communities They 

Serve: Supporting 

Collective Healing in 

the Wake of Harm

OVC

X X — — X — 

Improving Outcomes 

for Child and Youth 

Victims of Human 

Trafficking: A 

Jurisdiction wide 

Approach

OVC

X X X X X — 

Mentoring for Child 

Victims of 

Commercial Sexual 

Exploitation and 

Domestic Sex 

Trafficking 

Office on 

Juvenile 

Justice and 

Delinquency 

Prevention 

(OJJDP) 

X — X X X — 

National Girls 

Initiative

OJJDP X — — X X — 

Defending Childhood

American 

Indian/Alaska Native 

Policy Initiative: 

Supporting TraumaInformed Juvenile 

Justice Systems for 

Tribes

OJJDP

X — X X X X 

Victims of Child 

Abuse Regional 

Children’s Advocacy 

Centers Program

OJJDP

X — — X X — 

Court-Appointed 

Special Advocates 

Membership and 

Accreditation 

Program and 

Training and 

Technical 

Assistance

OJJDP

X — — X X — 
Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans

Page 41 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Grant Program

Agency 

Component

Collaboration 

and 

Partnerships

Data, 

Research, 

and 

Evaluation

Provision of 

Services 

Directly to 

Victims

Public 

Awareness

Training or 

Technical 

Assistance

Exclusive to 

Tribal Entities

VOCA Training and 

Technical 

Assistance for Child 

Abuse Professionals

OJJDP

X X — — X — 

Reducing Reliance 

on Confinement and 

Improving 

Community-based 

Responses for Girls 

at Risk of Entering 

the Juvenile Justice 

System

OJJDP

X X X — — — 

National Mentoring 

Resource Center

OJJDP X — — — X — 

Research and 

Evaluation on 

Trafficking in 

Persons

National 

Institutes of 

Justice (NIJ) — X — — — — 

Regional Information 

Sharing Systems

Bureau of 

Justice 

Assistance 

(BJA) 

X — — — X — 

Adjudication and 

Law Enforcement 

National Initiatives: 

Improving 

Responses to 

Criminal Justice 

Issues

BJA

X X — — X — 

Visiting Fellows 

Program 

BJA X X — — X — 

Justice Information 

Sharing Solutions 

Implementation 

Program 

BJA

X X — — — 

Law Enforcement: 

National Training 

and Technical 

Assistance

BJA

X — — — X — 
Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal 

Grant Programs that Could Address Human 

Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native 

Americans

Page 42 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Grant Program

Agency 

Component

Collaboration 

and 

Partnerships

Data, 

Research, 

and 

Evaluation

Provision of 

Services 

Directly to 

Victims

Public 

Awareness

Training or 

Technical 

Assistance

Exclusive to 

Tribal Entities

National Training 

and Technical 

Assistance: AntiHuman Trafficking 

Training for Law 

Enforcement and 

State Prosecutors 

Program 

BJA

X — — — X — 

Anti-Human 

Trafficking National 

Training and 

Technical 

Assistance Program 

for Law Enforcement 

Task Forces

BJA

X — — — X — 

Enhanced 

Collaborative Model 

to Combat Human 

Trafficking Program

BJA/OVC

X X X X X — 

Community Policing 

Development

Office of 

Community 

Oriented 

Policing 

Services 

(COPS) 

X X — — X — 

Department of Homeland Security

(1 Grant Program)

Center of Excellence 

– Center for Borders, 

Trade and 

Immigration 

Research

Science & 

Technology 

Directorate X X — — — — 

Source: GAO Analysis I GAO-17-325
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 43 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 44 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 45 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 46 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 47 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Justice

Page 48 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements

Page 49 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Gretta L. Goodwin, (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov

In addition to the contact name above, Kristy Love, Assistant Director; 

Kisha Clark, Analyst-in-Charge; Jessica Ard; Paulissa Earl; Marycella 

Mierez; Susan Hsu; Jon Najmi; Michele Fejfar; and David Blanding made 

significant contributions to the work.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 50 GAO-17-325 Native American Human Trafficking

Human Trafficking: State Has Made Improvements in Its Annual Report 

but Does Not Explicitly Explain Certain Tier Rankings or Changes. 

GAO-17-56. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Implementation of Related Statutory Provisions, Law 

Enforcement Efforts, and Grant Funding. GAO-16-748T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 28, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Agencies Have Taken Steps to Assess Prevalence, 

Address Victim Issues, and Avoid Grant Duplication. GAO-16-555. 

Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Actions Taken to Implement Related Statutory 

Provisions. GAO-16-528R. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2016. 

Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in 

High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened. GAO-15-102. 

Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2014. 

Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects 

Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements. GAO-07-1034. 

Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007. 

Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the 

Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking 

Crimes. GAO-07-915. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007. 

Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to 

Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad. GAO-06-825. 

Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2006. 

Related GAO Products

(100590)
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, LinkedIn, 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 and read The Watchblog. 

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.