Human Trafficking: State Has Made Improvements in Its Annual Report but Does Not Explicitly Explain Certain Tier Rankings or Changes
Published: 2016-12-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
Human traffickers around the world exploit men, women, and children for profit—often through commercial sex work or forced labor. The State Department annually reports on global antitrafficking efforts—ranking countries into 1 of 4 tiers based on their actions.
We found several key shortcomings in State's 2015 and 2016 reports—potentially limiting their usefulness as tools to encourage governments to fight trafficking. For example, the reports lacked clear explanations for some countries' rankings, or for decisions to upgrade or downgrade a country to a different tier.
We recommended that State improve the transparency and clarity of the Trafficking in Persons Report. (An earlier version of this summary was not clear about the nature of GAO’s recommendations. It has been updated.)

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Human traffickers exploit men, women, and children for financial gain. Congress enacted the TVPA in 2000, which requires the Secretary of State to report annually on governments' efforts according to the act's minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Each year since 2001, State has published the Trafficking in Persons Report , ranking countries into one of four tiers. GAO found in 2006 that the report did not fully describe State's assessment of compliance with standards or provide complete explanations for ranking decisions.
The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, included a provision for GAO to review the report's preparation and effectiveness. This report addresses (1) the process to develop the report, (2) the extent to which country narratives discuss minimum standards, and (3) the extent to which State assesses the report's effectiveness as a tool to address trafficking. GAO compared 220 country narratives in the 2015 and 2016 reports with the minimum standards and analyzed 82 narratives for countries that changed tier. GAO also interviewed State and other officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of State's (State) Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking Office) compiles information on countries' actions to combat human trafficking and recommends tier rankings for the Trafficking in Persons Report but did not post information on waivers within mandated timeframes. The figure below shows the percentage of countries by tier in the 2015 and 2016 reports. Disagreements about tier rankings between the Trafficking Office and other parts of State, which have different priorities, are usually resolved at the working level, according to officials, with only a few elevated to the Secretary of State for resolution. The Secretary of State determines all final tier rankings. The Trafficking Office recommends whether to grant waivers for countries that otherwise would be automatically downgraded to the lowest tier. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) requires State to post a detailed description of the credible evidence used to support these waivers on its website annually, but State did not do so for the 2014 through 2016 reports until September 2016.
State has made improvements to the Trafficking in Persons Report since 2006 but does not explicitly explain the basis for certain countries' tier rankings or, where relevant, why countries' tier rankings changed. GAO's analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that, compared with GAO's previous report in 2006, there were fewer instances in which minimum standards and criteria were not mentioned in the narratives. However, most narratives for the highest-ranked, or Tier 1, countries in the 2015 and 2016 reports did not explicitly explain the basis for the tier rankings. The narratives sometimes included language that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria. In addition, GAO found that, for countries that changed tier from one year to the next, most narratives did not provide an explicit explanation as to why the rankings changed. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should be communicated in a way that is useful to internal and external users. Lacking such clarity could diminish the report's usefulness as a tool to advance efforts to combat trafficking.
State and other officials indicate that the Trafficking in Persons Report can be a useful tool to engage other countries about trafficking, but State has not systematically assessed the report's effectiveness. As a result, the effect of the report in encouraging governments to make progress in combating trafficking is not well understood. However, State officials stated that they are working on efforts to assess the report's effectiveness at achieving the goal of addressing trafficking worldwide.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making four recommendations to the Secretary of State to improve the clarity and usefulness of the Trafficking in Persons Report by posting evidence to support downgrade waivers on State's website, improving explanations for tier rankings and changes, and assessing the effectiveness of the report as a tool to address trafficking. State agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Human traffickers around the world exploit men, women, and children for  financial gain. Trafficking victims are forced to work in illegal professions,  such as the commercial sex trade, as well as in labor environments such  as garment factories, fishing boats, agricultural settings, and domestic  service. In addition to inflicting grave personal damage upon its victims,  trafficking undermines government authority, fuels organized criminal  groups and gangs, and imposes social and public health costs. In 2000,  Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to  combat trafficking in persons. Congress reauthorized this act four times,  most recently in 2013. This act, as amended, requires, among other  things, that the Secretary of State report to Congress annually on foreign  governments’ antitrafficking efforts according to the act’s minimum  standards for the elimination of trafficking. By statute, the report should  include lists of those countries arranged by the range of their  governments’ compliance with the U.S. minimum standards. We found in  July 2006 that the explanations for country ranking decisions in the  Trafficking in Persons Report were incomplete and that the report did not  comprehensively describe compliance with the minimum standards to  combat trafficking.
The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated  Appropriations Act, 2014, includes a provision for GAO to assess the  methodology used in the preparation of the Department of State’s (State)  annual Trafficking in Persons Report and the effectiveness of this report  as a tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking. This report  addresses (1) the process State uses to prepare country narratives and  decide tier rankings in the Trafficking in Persons Report, (2) the extent to  which country narratives in the Trafficking in Persons Report clearly  discuss the minimum standards to combat trafficking as enumerated in  the TVPA and interpreted by State, and (3) the extent to which State  assesses the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report as a  diplomatic tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and State  documents and interviewed State, other agency, and nongovernmental  organization (NGO) officials with input into the process. We reviewed  185 country narratives in the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report, as well  as 35 country narratives in the 2016 report for countries with the highest  ranking. We systematically compared the country narratives with the  minimum standards (as interpreted and applied by State) and determined  whether the narratives clearly explained State’s assessment regarding  governments’ compliance with them. We did not assess whether State  had placed countries in the appropriate tier. Each country narrative was  assessed independently by two analysts, using a detailed rules document  developed using State’s guidelines and through discussions with State.  We also analyzed the narratives for the countries that changed tiers in the  2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons reports to assess whether the  narratives clearly explain why State decided to change a country’s tier  ranking. Appendix  I provides more information about our scope and  methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Human traffickers exploit individuals, and human trafficking often involves  transnational criminal organizations, violations of labor and immigration  codes, and government corruption. Many forms of trafficking—including  sex trafficking and labor trafficking—can take place anywhere in the world  and can occur without crossing country boundaries. As discussed in the  Trafficking in Persons Report, trafficking victims include Asian and African  women and men who migrate to the Persian Gulf region for domestic  labor but then suffer both labor trafficking and sexual abuse in the homes  of their employers. Some victims are children; for example, Pakistani  children as young as 5 are sold or kidnapped into forced labor to work in  brick kilns, some of which are owned by government officials. Other  victims are subjected to sexual exploitation; in some cases, women and  girls have been bought and sold as sex slaves by members of the Islamic  State; in others, adult men and women are forced to engage in  commercial sex, and children are induced to do the same. Individuals,  including men, are exploited in forced labor in a variety of sectors;  Burmese men, for example, have been subjected to forced labor 20 hours  a day, 7 days a week on fishing boats in Thailand.
Reliable data on the scope of trafficking are limited due to a number of  factors. Trafficking is a clandestine activity, which limits the data  available on victims. Victims may live daily under inhumane treatment,  physical and mental abuse, and threats to themselves or their families.  Because of their vulnerable position, trafficking victims may be unwilling  or unable to report to, or seek help from, relevant authorities. They may  distrust the government and police because they are afraid of being  deported or because they come from countries where law enforcement is  corrupt and feared, or their traffickers made such threats to discourage  their reporting to law enforcement. Further, some governments do not  systematically collect data on victims or do not recognize some types of  trafficking, such as forced labor or the trafficking of men.
In 2000, Congress enacted the TVPA and reauthorized it four times, most  recently in 2013. The act, as amended, defines severe forms of  trafficking in persons as (1) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act  is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to  perform such act is under age 18; or (2) the recruitment, harboring,  transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services,  through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, for the purpose of subjection  to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. The TVPA  does not specify movement across international boundaries as a  condition of trafficking nor does it require the transportation of victims  from one locale to another. According to State officials, the TVPA  definition of trafficking is largely consistent with the definition set forth in  the UN Protocol on trafficking in persons.
The TVPA, as amended, provides a framework for current U.S.  antitrafficking efforts, including the criteria for the Trafficking in Persons  Report. According to State officials, it is also consistent with the UN  Protocol on trafficking in persons in approaching this crime within a  framework known as the “three p’s”: prosecution, protection and  prevention. These include the prosecution and punishment of traffickers,  the protection of and assistance for victims of trafficking, and the  prevention of trafficking. The TVPA, as amended, also laid out minimum  standards for eliminating trafficking to be used in the Secretary of State’s  annual assessment of foreign governments’ antitrafficking efforts (see  app. II). The first three standards deal with countries’ efforts to enact  laws to prohibit severe forms of trafficking and prescribe penalties for  trafficking. The fourth standard, as detailed by State, relates to  government efforts to implement those laws and includes 12 criteria that can be used to assess these efforts. For example, criteria for the fourth  minimum standard include whether a country’s government has achieved  appreciable progress in eliminating trafficking—including prosecuting  traffickers, protecting victims, and preventing trafficking—compared to  efforts from the previous year and whether a country’s government has  taken steps to protect and provide assistance, such as counseling and  shelter, to victims.
The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking  Office) was established in accordance with the TVPA of 2000. The office  is headed by an ambassador-at-large and is organized into four sections:  Reports and Political Affairs, International  Programs, Public Engagement,  and Resource Management and Planning. The Reports and Political  Affairs section prepares the congressionally mandated Trafficking in  Persons Report annually. Other parts of State, including regional  bureaus, which cover geographic regions, and functional bureaus, which  cover global issues such as refugees and human rights, also have input  into the report.
The report ranks countries into one of four categories, or tiers, based on  the Secretary of State’s assessment of foreign governments’ compliance  with the four minimum standards for eliminating human trafficking. See  figure 1 for the number of countries in each tier in 2015 and 2016. As  reported by State, the definitions of the four tiers are as follows:
Tier 1: countries whose governments fully meet the minimum  standards.
Tier 2: countries whose governments do not fully meet the minimum  standards but are making significant efforts to do so.
Tier 2 Watch List: countries whose governments do not fully meet the  minimum standards but are making significant efforts to do so and have a very significant or increasing number of victims,  fail to show increasing efforts to combat trafficking from the  previous year, or have been assessed as making significant efforts to comply based  on commitments to take steps over the next year.
Tier 3: countries whose governments do not meet the minimum  standards and are not making significant efforts to do so.
Figure 2 shows tier ranking by country. Appendix III  lists each country by  tier.
In addition, under a 2008 amendment to the TVPA, any country that has  been included on the Tier 2 Watch List for 2 consecutive years and that  would otherwise be ranked on the Tier 2 Watch List for the next year will  be included in Tier 3 in the third year. The Secretary of State is  authorized to waive the automatic downgrade if the Secretary determines  that a government has devoted sufficient resources (such as funding,  staffing, or in-kind or other resources) to a written plan that, if  implemented, would constitute making significant efforts to meet the  minimum standards and reports credible evidence of such to specified  congressional committees. Countries may receive such a waiver for two  consecutive years, after which time a country must either go up to Tier 2  or down to Tier 3.
The TVPA, as amended, also established funding restrictions, such as  withholding nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related assistance, that could be  applied against governments that are not in compliance with the minimum  standards and not making significant efforts to come into compliance (i.e.,  countries in Tier 3). Types of assistance that can be withheld include  support to a country’s military. Those funding restrictions may be waived  by the President if the provision of assistance would promote the  purposes of the TVPA, or is otherwise in the U.S. national interest.
section_title: Trafficking Office Drafts Country Narratives and Works with Bureaus to Resolve Disagreements on Tier Rankings but Did Not Post Information about Waivers within the Required Deadline
paragraphs: The Trafficking Office drafts the Trafficking in Persons Report based on  information it receives from a variety of sources including U.S. missions,  NGOs, and foreign governments. In 2014, after the most recent TVPA  reauthorization, State officials noted that they revised State’s guidance for  drafting country narratives and its guidelines for implementing the TVPA  minimum standards to help ensure consistent application of the standards  across country narratives. The Trafficking Office also makes tier ranking  recommendations for each country. The Trafficking Office stated that it  reported to Congress in a timely manner all required information on  countries that received waivers to avoid being downgraded to Tier 3, but it  did not annually post this information to its website within the TVPA  required deadline for the 2014, 2015, or 2016 reports. The information  for all 3 years was posted in September 2016 despite the requirement to  do so within 30 days of notifying Congress of these waivers. According to  Trafficking Office officials, they resolve most tier ranking disagreements  with regional bureaus, with relatively few elevated to the Secretary  without a consensus recommendation. In the final step of the process, the  Trafficking Office facilitates communication between other State bureaus  and other government agencies to decide whether to recommend that the  President grant waivers for funding restrictions for countries in Tier 3.
subsections: section_title: Trafficking Office Drafts Narratives and Makes Tier Ranking Recommendations but Did Not Post Information on Downgrade Waivers on State’s Website within the Required Deadline
subsections: section_title: Trafficking Office Gathers Information and Has Developed Reporting Guidance
paragraphs: The Trafficking Office produces initial drafts of the State Department’s  annual Trafficking in Persons Report with input compiled from a variety of  sources including U.S. missions, foreign governments, and NGOs.  Those drafts are edited and refined with the direct involvement of the  regional and functional bureaus. The reporting period covers actions that  governments take from April 1 of one year through March 31 of the next  year. See figure 3 for an overview of the reporting process from  information gathering through issuance.
According to State officials, Trafficking Office analysts gather information  throughout the year from sources including foreign governments, U.S.  missions overseas, other department offices and U.S. government  agencies, NGOs, media reports, and research, as well as the analysts’  travel and consultations around the world. Officials noted that the 12  analysts in the office were each responsible for 15 to 20 countries,  grouped by geographic region, in the 2015 and 2016 reports. The  Trafficking in Persons Report has narratives for 188 countries in the 2015  report, including two territories and one special case. Trafficking Office  officials stated that each analyst is responsible for maintaining expertise  and gathering information for each country in his or her portfolio, which  includes traveling to the countries to engage with U.S. mission staff,  NGOs, and host government officials.
In November, the Trafficking Office sends a request for information to all  diplomatic and consular posts and publishes a four-page notice in the  Federal Register requesting information on the degree to which the  United States and foreign governments meet the minimum standards for  the elimination of trafficking in persons. In response to the request to the  U.S. missions, the officials at the missions return a detailed submission  on the trafficking situation in the host country and the government’s  efforts to combat it, including updates from the previous year’s report and  specific data sets requested by the Trafficking Office (see app. IV for  more on the law enforcement data included in the report). Reporting  officers are encouraged to draw on a variety of sources to obtain this  information, including host government officials, NGOs, and international  and multilateral organizations. NGOs noted that they also provide  information directly to the Trafficking Office throughout the reporting  period. Analysts in the Trafficking Office said that they compile the  information for the U.S. narrative primarily from the U.S. Attorney  General’s Annual Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S.  Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons, but also from  other U.S. government agencies and NGOs. The information is due in  mid-February, which is about 6 weeks before the end of the reporting  period. Therefore, Trafficking Office analysts stated that they work to  collect and update the information while they are still drafting country  narratives to ensure that they have the latest and most accurate  information.
The Trafficking Office provides State’s implementation guidelines for  State staff, including human trafficking reporting officers at the U.S.  missions, during information sessions and on State’s internal website.  These guidelines detail State’s implementation of the TVPA’s reporting  requirement, and include the definition of severe forms of trafficking in  persons, the standards from the TVPA and how to implement them, the  roles of the reporting officers, and the elements of the reporting process.  The guidelines include descriptions of the actions a government should  take to meet the various standards and applicable criteria. For example,  to determine whether a foreign government satisfies the minimum  standard for prescribing punishment for traffickers that is sufficiently  stringent, the guidance states that the country should include criminal  penalties to include a maximum sentence of at least 4 years deprivation  of liberty, or a more severe penalty.
The Trafficking Office also gives similar guidance to its analysts to use in  preparing the Trafficking in Persons Report. The guidance establishes  some standard language for the narratives in the report. The guidance  includes standard language to indicate compliance or noncompliance with  the first three minimum standards enumerated in the TVPA, which  address laws to prohibit and punish trafficking in persons. For example,  using the guidance, an analyst may write “Country X prohibits all forms of  trafficking and prescribes penalties that are sufficiently stringent and  commensurate with other serious crimes, such as rape.” The guidance  also establishes standard language for certain criteria for the fourth  minimum standard on governments’ efforts to implement its trafficking  laws, such as training diplomatic personnel, addressing official complicity  in participating in or facilitating trafficking, or not penalizing victims for  acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked. For example, the  standard language for official complicity, in cases where a government  reported no efforts to combat official complicity in human trafficking and  where no complicity is documented or known, is “The government did not  report any investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government  employees complicit in human trafficking offenses.” Additionally,  the  guidance document establishes standard language for some countries  downgraded from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3; for example, “The  government of X does not fully comply with the minimum standards for  the elimination of trafficking. The government of X does not have a written  plan; therefore, Country X is deemed not to be making significant efforts  to comply with the minimum standards and is placed on Tier 3.”
In 2014, after the most recent TVPA reauthorization, State officials noted  that they revised its guidance for drafting country narratives and its  guidelines for implementing the TVPA minimum standards to help ensure  consistent application of the standards across country narratives.
section_title: Trafficking Office Drafts Narratives and Assigns Tiers but Did Not Publicize Information on Automatic Downgrade Waivers within Required Deadline
paragraphs: The Trafficking Office writes the first drafts of the country narratives from  mid-February through early April. The analysts use the information  compiled all year from U.S. missions, NGOs, and foreign governments in  combination with information obtained from travel, the media, and other  sources to write the country narratives and assign recommended tier  rankings. The rankings are based on the governments’ efforts against  trafficking as measured against State’s implementation of the TVPA  minimum standards, compared with the governments’ efforts in the  preceding years, and not compared to the efforts of other countries.
The Trafficking in Persons Report narratives provide data and analytical  assessments of the governments’ performance as related to the TVPA  minimum standards as interpreted by State. The narratives follow a  standard presentation and include the status of efforts to combat  trafficking in the countries and recommendations for actions to improve  these efforts. See figure 4 for a summary of the report elements.
State officials told us that State does not use a formula to determine tier  rankings; rather, it considers the totality of government efforts in the  categories of prosecution, protection, and prevention. According to State  officials, State generally gives more focus to prosecution and protection  than to prevention because of the TVPA’s structure. For example, State  officials noted that the first three minimum standards as well as several  criteria for minimum standard four are focused on prosecution.
As part of the tier ranking process, the Trafficking Office identifies  countries that may require a waiver of a statutory automatic downgrade  from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3 and that are potentially eligible to receive  one. The Trafficking Office then leads an assessment of each country’s  eligibility  for such a waiver and coordinates State Department-wide  recommendations for the Secretary’s consideration. Countries may  remain on the Tier 2 Watch List for 2 years before being automatically  downgraded to Tier 3. However, the TVPA, as amended, authorizes the  President to waive a country’s automatic downgrade for up to 2 years, if,  among other things, there is credible evidence that the country has a  written plan to make significant efforts to meet the minimum standards  and has devoted sufficient resources to the plan’s implementation. This  authority has been delegated by the President to the Secretary of State.
section_title: Trafficking Office Resolves Most Tier Ranking Disagreements at the Working Level with Regional Bureaus
paragraphs: The Trafficking Office produces initial drafts of the narratives in the report,  then works to resolve any disagreements on the draft content and  recommended tier rankings with the regional bureau and U.S. mission  staff. Once the Trafficking Office has completed the first drafts of each  country narrative, it sends the draft to the relevant overseas mission and  regional bureau for review and further inputs. According to the  Trafficking Office, their analysts send out the draft narratives on a rolling  basis as they are completed; this year, the earliest drafts went out in late  February for initial factual review. Some of the regional bureaus we talked  to received drafts for the 2016 report between mid-April and early May.
According to Trafficking Office officials, once the Trafficking Office and  U.S. missions agree on the primary facts in the draft, the Trafficking  Office formulates tier ranking recommendations. In the majority of cases,  tier ranking recommendations are agreed upon early in the process at the  working level. In other cases, several drafts are exchanged either due to  significant gaps in data or because the characterization and weighing of  data merit further discussion. When the regional bureaus and Trafficking  Office disagree on the content of the narratives or the tier rankings, State  officials explained that reconciliation involves several steps:  (1) The Trafficking Office attempts to resolve any disagreements  regarding the narratives and tier ranking recommendations at the  working level, that is, between the Trafficking Office analyst and the  contact at the U.S. mission and the regional bureau. According to  State officials, the majority of disagreements are resolved at the  working level.  (2) Disagreements that cannot be resolved at the working level are  discussed at a meeting chaired by Trafficking Office Ambassador and  the designated regional bureau counterpart. In cases where they do  not reach consensus on recommendations, additional fact-gathering  or subsequent conversations are required, sometimes including  higher-level senior officials.  (3) All drafts and recommended tier rankings are sent to the Secretary,  along with any remaining disagreements, for the Secretary’s final  decision.
According to the TVPA, the Secretary is required to submit the Trafficking  in Persons Report to the appropriate congressional committees. The  Secretary has the sole authority to assign tier rankings. The Secretary’s  decisions are informed by recommendations made by department staff.  The Secretary makes the final decision on all tier rankings, including  those that remain in disagreement. According to State officials, if the  Secretary highlights a factual issue or thinks the narrative should be  revised, State staff would respond accordingly. Regardless of the final tier  ranking decision, Trafficking Office officials explained that it is the  weighting of the facts, not the facts themselves, that is the determining  factor in tier ranking decisions. Officials said that the Trafficking Office  and regional bureaus might assess the facts differently because of  differing priorities. For example, State officials said that the Trafficking  Office is focused on trafficking issues in a country, while regional bureaus  take a broader perspective that considers overall relations with countries.
Regional bureau officers said that consultations among stakeholders are  part of the process to resolve disagreements about tier rankings. State  officials explained that discussions about the facts and how they are  weighed is an important part of the report drafting and tier ranking  process. In some cases, the relatively short time the regional bureaus  have from when they get the drafts to when they have the report  consultations (around a week, in some cases) can make it difficult to gather more information from regional bureaus and U.S. missions to  make updates or corrections or to support resolution of tier ranking  disagreements. According to State, late submission of information by  governments or delays in providing edits on a draft can present similar  challenges. However, one regional bureau official noted that the  Trafficking Office generally sends the more controversial country  narratives earlier, giving the bureau more time to review them. Regional  bureau officials explained that they need time to update the information in  the narratives between receiving the draft and starting the process to  resolve tier ranking disagreements. Additionally,  some bureau officials  stated that they occasionally have received the tier ranking after they  receive the draft, which leaves less time to gather the information needed  from the U.S. missions and foreign governments to support a tier ranking  disagreement.
In the final stage of the reporting process, State releases the Trafficking in  Persons Report to Congress and the public. Before the public issuance of  the report, State sends a notification to each U.S. mission in a country or  territory in the report that includes the country narrative and tier ranking  for release to the host government, accompanying notes of explanation  for delivering the narrative and ranking to the host government, and an  action plan containing recommended steps for making antitrafficking  progress in the country or territory. The Trafficking Office drafts these  action plans based on the recommendations in the country narratives,  and clears the plans with the regional bureaus and U.S. missions. The  plans are designed to guide the progress of the host governments’  antitrafficking efforts.
section_title: The Trafficking Office Works with Other State Bureaus and Agencies to Decide on Waivers for Funding Restrictions
paragraphs: The Trafficking Office manages the process by which State and other  relevant U.S. government agencies recommend which countries in Tier 3  receive waivers of assistance restrictions. This process results in specific  recommendations for the Secretary that inform their final  recommendations to the President. The President has responsibility for  making the final determinations. Pursuant to the TVPA, as amended,  governments of countries in Tier 3 may be subject to certain funding  restrictions, whereby the U.S. government may restrict nonhumanitarian,  nontrade-related foreign assistance. In addition, countries whose  governments received no nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign  assistance from the United States during the previous fiscal year may be  subject to restrictions on funding for government employees’ participation  in educational and cultural exchange programs. Furthermore, consistent  with the TVPA, as amended, the President will also instruct the U.S.
Executive Directors of each multilateral development bank and of the  International  Monetary Fund to vote against, and to use the Executive  Director’s best efforts to deny, any loan or other utilization of the funds of  the respective institution to that country, with certain exceptions.
Officials stated that the Trafficking Office leads the formal process of  considering waivers on funding restrictions for countries in Tier 3 usually  around the start of July, as soon as the Trafficking in Persons Report is  publicly released. According to the TVPA, the determination about  waivers for Tier 3 countries must be made not less than 45 days or more  than 90 days of the Trafficking in Persons Report’s release.
The Trafficking Office engages the regional and functional bureaus at  State, as well as the Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Agency for  International  Development (USAID), and the Department of the Treasury  to provide recommendations on the types of assistance in a given country  that could be subject to restriction and whether countries will get full,  partial, or no waivers. The regional and functional bureaus may argue for  funding restriction waivers for some Tier 3 countries for many reasons,  such as the fact that some assistance supports human trafficking goals  (e.g., funding for training prosecutors); regional or functional bureaus as  well as other agencies may argue for waivers on the basis of larger  issues that are in the national interest of the United States. State officials  explained that they compile a package with the list of recommendations to  provide full, partial, or no waivers of funding restrictions for countries in  Tier 3, which includes information to support the recommendations, and  sends this list to the other agencies for their input. According to DOD and  USAID officials, the agencies review the recommendations, coordinate  the input of the related agency offices and components affected, and  respond to State as to whether they agree or disagree with the  recommendations on waivers. The Trafficking Office incorporates input  from other entities at State and the other relevant agencies into a memo  to the Secretary of State with recommendations. The Secretary transmits  recommendations to the President, who makes the final determinations  on funding restrictions and waivers and submits the list to Congress.
In 2015, 21 of the 23 countries ranked as Tier 3 received a full or partial  waiver. Thirteen were granted full waivers, and 8 were granted partial  waivers. For example, Thailand received a full waiver of the TVPA  restriction on nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance.  South Sudan received a partial waiver to allow for nonhumanitarian,  nontrade related assistance otherwise restricted under the act, except for  funding for foreign military sales, foreign military financing, and excess  defense articles, which was restricted as a result of its placement in Tier  3. North Korea and Iran were not granted any waivers on funding  restrictions. However, the assistance the United States has provided to  these governments, if any, would be limited, so little funding would be  restricted as a result.
section_title: State Has Made Improvements to the Trafficking in Persons Report but Does Not Explicitly Explain the Basis for Certain Countries’ Tier Rankings or Tier Changes
paragraphs: State has made improvements to the Trafficking in Persons Report but  does not explicitly explain the basis for certain countries’ tier rankings or,  where relevant, why countries’ tier rankings changed. Our analysis of the  2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that, compared to our previous  review in 2006, there were few instances in which minimum standards  and criteria were not mentioned in the report country narratives. However,  most narratives for the highest-ranked, or Tier 1, countries in the 2015  and 2016 reports did not explicitly explain the basis for the tier ranking.  The TVPA-mandated reports state that Tier 1 countries are those whose  governments fully comply with the minimum standards to combat  trafficking. Specifically, the Trafficking in Persons Report states that  “while Tier 1 is the highest ranking, it does not mean that a country has  no human trafficking problem or that it is doing enough to address the  problem. Rather, a Tier 1 ranking indicates that a government has  acknowledged the existence of human trafficking, has made efforts to  address the problem, and meets the TVPA’s minimum standards.”  Nonetheless, we found that the narratives sometimes included language  that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria. These  narratives also did not contain an explanation  as to how the negative  information provided fits into the country’s overall placement in Tier 1 in  accordance with State’s reporting guidance. Moreover, the narratives also  included ambiguous language, which made it unclear how State had  determined whether certain standards and criteria were met. In addition,  we found that, for countries that changed tier from one year to the next,  most narratives did not provide an explicit explanation as to why State  had decided to change those countries’ tier rankings. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should  be communicated in a way that is useful to internal and external users.  Without such clarity, the report’s usefulness could be diminished.
subsections: section_title: State Has Made Improvements to the Trafficking in Persons Report Since 2006
paragraphs: Our analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that State  has made improvements to its annual report since our previous review in  2006. In 2006, we reported that many country narratives in the 2005  Trafficking in Persons Report did not mention compliance with certain  minimum standards and criteria. In contrast, our analysis of the 2015  Trafficking in Persons Report found considerably fewer instances in which  standards and criteria were not mentioned in the country narratives:
For example, in 2006 we reported that the narratives for 21 percent of  the Tier 1 countries did not mention whether the governments  complied with the second minimum standard, which, among other  things, calls for governments to prescribe penalties for sex trafficking  that are commensurate with those for grave crimes such as forcible  sexual assault. In contrast, our analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in  Persons Report found that all Tier 1 country narratives mentioned the  second minimum standard.
We also reported in 2006 that the narratives for 80 percent of the  countries in the lowest two tiers (Tier 2 Watch List and Tier 3) failed to  mention key aspects of the victim protection criterion for minimum  standard four, including whether victims were encouraged to assist in  the investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases, whether the  government provided legal alternatives to removal to countries in  which victims would face retribution or hardship, and whether victims  were protected from being inappropriately penalized for unlawful acts  committed as a direct result of being trafficked. In contrast, our  analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that less than  half (42 percent) of the Tier 2 Watch List and Tier 3 country narratives  did not mention these aspects of the victim protection criterion.
section_title: Report Narratives for Countries in Lowest Three Tiers Appear to Generally Support Countries’ Tier Rankings
paragraphs: The Trafficking in Persons Report defines the three lowest tiers (Tier 2,  Tier 2 Watch List, and Tier 3) as exhibiting varying degrees of  noncompliance with the TVPA minimum standards. We found that Tier 3  country narratives generally described decreasing or inadequate efforts.  Furthermore, across the narratives for the countries in the lowest three  tiers, we found that the groups of narratives in each tier contained  progressively less negative information regarding governments’ actions  moving from Tier 3 to Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 2. For example, criterion  11 of minimum standard four concerns whether governments achieve  appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking when  compared to the assessment in the previous year. Trafficking Office  analysts said that governments should show overall increasing efforts  across the prosecution, protection, and prevention categories to meet this  criterion, and that State’s assessment is captured in the first sentence of  each category:
Tier 3 country narratives generally described decreasing or  inadequate efforts. Our analysis found that 20 (87 percent) of the 23  Tier 3 country narratives described decreasing or inadequate efforts in  one or more of the prosecution, protection, and prevention categories.  In addition, only two country narratives described increasing efforts in  any of the three categories. The Trafficking in Persons Report defines  Tier 3 countries as those whose governments do not fully comply with  the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to bring  themselves into compliance with those standards.
Tier 2 Watch List country narratives generally described decreasing,  mixed, or sustained efforts. Our analysis found that 34 (77 percent) of  the 44 Tier 2 Watch List country narratives described decreasing,  mixed, or sustained efforts in one or more of the prosecution,  protection, and prevention categories. Narrative reporting of mixed  efforts included a combination of positive and negative findings, such  as that the government had increased identification of victims but had  provided victims inadequate assistance, or had made progress in law  enforcement efforts but continued to lack trafficking convictions. The  Trafficking in Persons Report defines Tier 2 Watch List countries as  those whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum  standards but are making significant efforts to bring themselves into  compliance with those standards, and where there is a failure to  provide evidence of increasing efforts to combat trafficking from the  previous year, among other things.
Tier 2 country narratives generally described increasing, mixed, or  sustained efforts. Our analysis found that 77 (89 percent) of the 87  Tier 2 country narratives described increasing, mixed, or sustained  efforts in one or more of the prosecution, protection, or prevention  categories. Furthermore, in contrast to the 87 percent of Tier 3  country narratives that described decreasing or inadequate efforts in  one or more of the three categories, less than half (36 percent) of Tier  2 country narratives did. The Trafficking in Persons Report defines  Tier 2 countries as those whose governments do not fully comply with  the minimum standards but are making significant efforts to bring  themselves into compliance with those standards.
section_title: Report Narratives in Most Cases Do Not Explicitly Explain the Basis for the Tier Ranking of the Highest-Ranked Countries
paragraphs: While our analysis of the narratives for the Tier 1 countries as a group  continued the trend of showing increased improvement in governments’  actions as compared to the groups of narratives for the other tiers, the  narratives for most Tier 1 countries in State’s 2015 and 2016 Trafficking  in Persons reports did not explicitly explain the basis for the tier rankings.  We did not assess whether State had placed countries in the appropriate  tier; rather, we assessed the language State used in the country  narratives. In implementing the TVPA, State ranks countries whose  governments fully comply with the minimum standards as Tier 1;  however, the report narratives sometimes included language that seemed  contradictory to certain standards and criteria. The narratives also  included ambiguous language, which meant that we were unable to  determine how State had determined whether certain standards and  criteria were met. Specifically, our analysis found that 61 (92 percent) of  the 66 Tier 1 country narratives in the 2015 and 2016 reports included  language that seemed contradictory to certain standards and criteria,  ambiguous language that made it unclear as to how State had  determined whether certain standards and criteria were met, or both.  However, the narratives did not explain how the contradictory or  ambiguous language provided fits into the country’s overall placement in  Tier 1 in accordance with State’s reporting guidance. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should  be communicated in a form that is useful to internal and external users.  Without clarity in country narratives regarding State’s assessments of  governments’ compliance with the minimum standards to combat  trafficking, particularly for Tier 1, which is described by the report as  governments of countries that fully meet the TVPA’s minimum standards  for the elimination of trafficking, the report’s usefulness could be  diminished.
subsections: section_title: Over Half of Narratives Contained Language that Seemed Inconsistent with the Highest Ranking
paragraphs: Forty (61 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives in State’s 2015 and  2016 Trafficking in Persons reports had at least one section that seemed  inconsistent with State’s reporting guidance regarding narratives for  countries with the highest ranking. Our analysis of the Tier 1 country  narratives in the 2015 and 2016 reports found that the narratives for 3 (5  percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives for that period included  language that seemed contradictory to State’s interpretation of the first  three minimum standards, which generally call for governments to prohibit  severe forms of trafficking in persons and prescribe penalties that are  sufficiently stringent and commensurate with those for grave crimes such  as forcible sexual assault. Trafficking Office analysts said that, in drafting  the narratives, the interpretation they use is that governments should  prohibit all forms of trafficking and prescribe penalties that are sufficiently  stringent and commensurate with those for other serious crimes, such as rape, to meet these standards. For example, the narrative for New  Zealand in the 2016 report noted that the government enacted a bill that  substantially conforms the definition of trafficking with international law;  however, the narrative also stated that the bill does not include a  provision making the sex trafficking of a child a crime regardless of  deception or coercion, which is, according to the narrative, inconsistent  with international law. The narrative further noted that prescribed  penalties are not sufficiently stringent because of the possibility that a fine  can be imposed in lieu of imprisonment and that the penalty for sex  trafficking is insufficient because it is not a penalty commensurate with  that imposed for other serious crimes, such as rape. The narrative does  not, however, contain an explanation as to how the negative information  provided fits into the country’s overall placement in Tier 1.
Further, 39 (59 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives in the 2015  and 2016 reports included language that seemed contradictory to certain  criteria State uses to assess whether governments are making serious  and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking as called for  by the fourth minimum standard. Criterion 11 of minimum standard four  concerns whether governments achieve appreciable progress in  eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the assessment  in the previous year. Trafficking Office analysts said that governments  should show overall increasing efforts across the prosecution, protection,  and prevention categories to meet this criterion and that increasing efforts  in each of these categories is not required. However, the narratives for 10  (15 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives for that period reported  that the governments made decreased, weakened, limited, or inadequate  efforts in at least one of the prosecution, protection, and prevention  categories. While increasing efforts in each of these categories is not required, this seems inconsistent with Trafficking Office guidelines and  statements that indicate Tier 1 countries should show evidence of  sustained progress in combating trafficking in persons. For example:
The 2015 report narrative for Armenia noted that the government  demonstrated decreased law enforcement efforts, as authorities  reported fewer prosecutions and convictions.
The narrative for Canada in the 2016 report stated that the  government identified fewer trafficking victims than in previous years;  the government did not provide adequate funding for specialized  victim services; and the range, quality, and timely delivery of services  varied across the provinces.
The narratives also included language that seemed contradictory to  State’s interpretation of minimum standard four criteria addressing  training for diplomats, efforts to reduce demand, and efforts to protect  victims from inappropriate penalization for unlawful acts committed as a  direct result of being trafficked. As previously discussed, there are 12  criteria that should be considered for minimum standard four  determinations; the Trafficking Office examines each criterion separately,  and its assessment of each individual criterion factors into its overall  assessment of compliance with minimum standard four. Specifically, we  found that, of the 66 Tier 1 country narratives:
10 narratives (15 percent) noted that the governments did not provide  antitrafficking training or guidance for their diplomatic personnel  (criterion 3);
12 narratives (18 percent) noted that the governments did not make  efforts to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts or forced labor  (criterion 12); and
15 narratives (23 percent) noted that the governments inappropriately  penalized trafficking victims for unlawful acts committed as a direct  result of being trafficked (criterion 2).
For example, the 2016 report narrative for Ireland stated that the  government prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned Asian victims of  forced labor in illegal cannabis production for crimes committed while  subjected to trafficking, with 70 Asian nationals remaining in prison  related to cannabis offenses, including 30 cases where the defendants  were in pretrial detention.
However, the narratives did not explicitly explain how these deficiencies  fit into the country’s overall placement in Tier 1.
section_title: Narratives Included Ambiguous Language, Making It Unclear How State Determined whether Certain Standards and Criteria Were Met
paragraphs: The 2015 and 2016 report country narratives included ambiguous  language, making it difficult to determine how State had determined  whether certain minimum standards and criteria were met, thus leaving  State’s justification for a Tier 1 ranking unclear. We were unable to  determine, judging from the narratives, State’s complete rationale for the  placement of 45 (68 percent) of the 66 Tier 1 countries. Specifically, we  found ambiguous language relating to the first minimum standard  (addressing the prohibition and punishment of trafficking); the minimum  standard four criterion on making appreciable progress; and the minimum  standard four criterion on victim protection, as interpreted by State.
Prohibiting and punishing trafficking (minimum standard 1). Our  analysis found that the narratives for 13 (20 percent) of the 66 Tier 1  country narratives for 2015 and 2016 stated that the governments  prohibit sex and labor trafficking, leaving it unclear how State  considered information to determine whether the governments prohibit  all forms of trafficking. According to Trafficking Office analysts, Tier  1 countries must criminalize all forms of trafficking. The 2015 and  2016 reports include the following categories of trafficking: sex  trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor, bonded labor or debt  bondage, domestic servitude, forced child labor, and unlawful  recruitment and use of child soldiers. The narratives for most Tier 1  countries explicitly stated that the governments prohibit all forms of  trafficking. For those narratives that did not explicitly state that the  governments prohibit all forms of trafficking, Trafficking Office analysts  acknowledged that there could be gaps in the countries’ laws, which  should be explained in the narratives, or that inconsistent language  might have been used across country narratives.
Making appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking  when compared to the previous year’s assessment (minimum  standard 4, criterion 11). Our analysis of the 2015 and 2016 reports  found that the narratives for 16 (24 percent) of the Tier 1 country  narratives for that period did not contain clear language describing  appreciable progress for any of the prosecution, protection, and  prevention categories. For each category, the narratives described  mixed efforts; stated that the governments made “modest efforts”; or  stated that the governments “sustained,” “maintained,” or “continued”  their efforts without defining those words or stating whether the  country made progress. For example, the narrative for Israel in the  2015 report cited a mix of positive and negative findings for the  prosecution and protection categories and “continued” efforts for the  prevention category. For prosecution, the narrative noted that the  government made strong law enforcement efforts but also gave  inadequate sentences to convicted offenders. For protection, it stated  that the government improved its efforts to identify and protect  trafficking victims but also stated that unidentified victims among the  African migrant population remained vulnerable to the government’s  policy of detaining migrants. The narrative cited “continued”  government efforts for the prevention category without explaining  whether those efforts demonstrated progress when compared with the  previous year.
Protecting victims of trafficking (minimum standard 4, criterion 2). Our  analysis found that the narratives for 34 (52 percent) of the 66 Tier 1  country narratives for 2015 and 2016 were unclear regarding how  State considered information to determine whether governments met  the overall victim protection requirement. State Trafficking Office  analysts said that State defines victim protection as (1) the  identification of victims, (2) the existence of systems to refer victims to  care, and (3) the provision of victim assistance (e.g., services,  shelter). However, the narratives did not clearly explain government  compliance with this criterion for most Tier 1 countries in the 2015 and  2016 reports. For example, the 2015 report narrative for the United  States stated that some trafficking victims, including those under 18  years of age, were detained or prosecuted for conduct committed as a  direct result of being subjected to trafficking. The narrative also stated  that NGOs reported that many state and local authorities failed to treat  sex-trafficked children as victims of trafficking by arresting and  incarcerating them, including states with “safe harbor” laws designed  to protect children from criminalization. However, it also noted that to  address these challenges, the U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services facilitated training with advocates, attorneys, and service  providers across the United States to increase identification of child  trafficking victims.
section_title: Most Report Narratives Do Not Provide Explicit Explanations as to Why Countries Changed Tier Ranking
paragraphs: Our analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in Persons reports showed  that most country narratives did not provide an explicit explanation as to  why countries were upgraded or downgraded in their tier ranking from  one year to the next. Although each narrative includes a trend line that  shows a country’s tier ranking from one year to the next, the narratives do  not explicitly explain why a country’s tier ranking changed. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information should  be communicated in a form that is useful to internal and external users.  The lack of an explicit explanation for most of State’s decisions to  upgrade or downgrade countries to a different tier could limit the ability of  internal and external stakeholders to understand the justification for tier  changes and, in turn, use the report as a diplomatic tool to advance  efforts to combat trafficking. Further, understanding tier ranking changes  is viewed as complicated, according to some State officials, by the  challenges in determining whether a government’s efforts are significant  according to the minimum standards when several indicators may point in  different directions. The tier ranking for a total of 82 countries was  changed in the 2015 and 2016 reports: 37 were upgraded, and 45 were  downgraded (see fig. 5).
Our analysis showed that, of the 82 countries upgraded or downgraded in  2015 or 2016, 7 (9 percent) of the country narratives explicitly explained  why the country’s tier ranking changed; however, none of the remaining  75 country narratives explicitly explained why the country’s tier ranking  changed. According to Trafficking Office guidance and analysts, State’s  justification for a country’s tier ranking is captured in the summary  paragraph of the country narrative. The analysts also noted that the  government does not need to show progress or lack of progress in all  three categories (prosecution, protection, and prevention) for a tier  change; in some cases, positive or negative movement in one category is  sufficient for a tier upgrade or downgrade. We examined the summary  paragraphs to determine whether they provided clear explanations as to  why countries were upgraded or downgraded in their tier ranking. The  only country narratives with an explicit explanation were for those  countries subject to the TVPA automatic downgrade provision. As  discussed earlier in this report, the TVPA, as amended, requires that  countries be automatically downgraded to Tier 3 after 2 consecutive years  on Tier 2 Watch List unless the country is granted a waiver based on  credible evidence that a waiver is justified because the government has a  written plan that, if implemented, would constitute making significant  efforts to comply with the TVPA minimum standards and is devoting  sufficient resources to implement the plan. The waiver can be issued for 2  consecutive years, bringing the total length of time a country can remain  on Tier 2 Watch List to 4 consecutive years. The narratives with explicit  explanations cited this 4-year time limit, or a waiver no longer being  available, or the lack of a written plan, as the reason for downgrading a  country from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3.
For those country narratives (75 of 82) that lacked an explicit explanation,  we examined the summary paragraphs and the first sentence of each of  the prosecution, protection, and prevention sections in the narratives to  see if there was any discernible information that may explain the tier  change. The narratives provided no direct linkage between the tier  change and the information cited in the summary paragraphs and  opening sentences. Trafficking Office analysts noted that they had not  made a deliberate decision to exclude an explanation as to why a country  changed tier but that this information can be inferred from the summary  paragraphs.
We found that 2 of these 75 country narratives provided no discernible  explanation for the tier change. The narratives described mixed efforts, or  included other ambiguous or contradictory language. Seventy-three  country narratives provided some information that could help explain  State’s decision to change the tier; however, no direct linkage was made  between such information and the tier change. Specifically, some  narratives provided an overarching statement summarizing State’s  determination regarding the country’s progress or lack of progress against  trafficking. For example, the 2015 summary paragraph for Kenya (which  was upgraded to Tier 2) stated that the government had made robust  efforts to implement the Counter-Trafficking in Persons Act for the first  time since it came into effect in 2012. Other narratives provided some  information for at least one of the three categories (prosecution,  protection, and prevention) that could help explain State’s decision to  change the tier. For example, the most commonly cited negative finding  for countries that were downgraded was that the government did not  prosecute or convict any traffickers during the reporting period or that  such law enforcement efforts had decreased when compared with the  previous reporting period. However, the narratives did not directly explain  that such information was a reason for the change in tier.
section_title: State and Other Officials Indicate that the Trafficking in Persons Report Is a Useful Tool in Engaging with Other Countries, but State Has Not Systematically Assessed Its Effectiveness Trafficking in Persons Report Can Create Opportunities and Challenges in Encouraging Actions against Trafficking
paragraphs: Based on our discussions with selected officials from State, other  agencies, and NGOs, the Trafficking in Persons Report has raised  awareness about trafficking and that countries’ concerns about their tier  ranking can spur them to make progress. However, the report can also  complicate bilateral efforts. Further, the U.S. government has waived Tier  3 funding restrictions, potentially reducing the reports’ impact. Finally,  State officials said they do not yet systematically assess the effectiveness  of the Trafficking in Persons Report as a tool to encourage countries to  combat human trafficking but plan to do so. Without such an assessment,  the effect of the report in encouraging governments to make progress  against trafficking is not well understood.
subsections: section_title: The U.S. Government Has Frequently Waived Tier 3 Funding Restrictions, Potentially Reducing Their Impact
paragraphs: As previously discussed, countries in Tier 3 are subject to restrictions on  assistance. These restrictions cover nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related  foreign assistance for affected governments, assistance through  multilateral development banks and, for certain countries, funding for  government official or employee participation in educational and cultural  exchange programs. The President has issued full or partial waivers for  many of the governments subject to the restrictions. For example, as  previously discussed, 21 of the 23 countries ranked Tier 3 in 2015  received a full or partial waiver. Officials raised questions about the  efficacy of the funding restrictions. For example, some NGO officials said  that, given the likelihood  that the funding restrictions will be waived,  governments do not see them as a credible threat that would motivate  them to increase antitrafficking efforts. Further, some State officials said  that, although some governments are motivated by the possibility of  funding restrictions, many are more concerned about the reputational  harm that comes with a Tier 3 ranking rather than about the risk of losing  funding. In addition, State officials said that while the Trafficking in  Persons Report is visible and is reported on locally, assistance from the  World Bank and other international financial institutions, such as the  International  Monetary Fund, goes forward without U.S. support. Thus,  U.S. opposition would not, on its own, prevent a country in Tier 3 from  obtaining multilateral assistance.
section_title: State Does Not Systematically Assess the Effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report
paragraphs: State has not yet systematically assessed the effectiveness of the  Trafficking in Persons Report as a tool to encourage countries to combat  human trafficking, according to State officials. As a result, State does not  have a formal assessment of how well the report achieves the goal of  encouraging governments to make progress in combating trafficking.
State officials noted a number of difficulties in systematically assessing  the report’s effectiveness. For example, steps that foreign governments  take to address human trafficking could be in response to any number of  factors, not just the Trafficking in Persons Report. In addition, officials  from one of the regional bureaus stated that because reliable data on the  level of trafficking are limited due to its inherent clandestine nature, it is  difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report in  encouraging change. It is also difficult to measure a country’s efforts. For  example, it can be difficult to assess whether a decrease in the number of  victims identified indicates a decrease in trafficking, or fewer country  efforts to identify and assist victims. The lack of reliable data on law  enforcement and victim assistance further complicates efforts to assess  effectiveness.
Trafficking Office and regional bureau officials stated that they do not  systematically track the extent to which countries take the actions that  State recommends in the report. According to State, the  recommendations provide governments guidance on how to enhance  their efforts to meet the TVPA’s minimum standards. Officials noted that  interim assessments required by the TVPA, and the process State has for  producing them, serve as a systematic review of progress by  governments in implementing the recommendations for Tier 2 Watch List  countries. In addition, the guidance on developing the report that the  Trafficking Office analysts use includes a section for assessment of  efforts to address the previous year’s recommendations. Further, the  Trafficking Office has begun efforts to compile information on  recommendations, such as the prioritization of the recommendations and  the number of consecutive years the recommendations have been in the  Trafficking in Persons Report. However, to date, the effort has not  assessed the impact of the report’s recommendations.
Officials from the Trafficking Office stated that they have taken steps to  more systematically assess the report’s effectiveness. Specifically,  officials said they have hired a monitoring and evaluation expert to assess  the Trafficking Office’s activities, including the Trafficking in Persons  Report. In addition, Trafficking Office officials said they plan to develop a  knowledge management database, for which they have solicited bids.  According to these officials, a better understanding of the results of the  Trafficking in Persons Report will contribute to this larger monitoring and  evaluation effort. Further, these officials said they are considering ways to  more effectively push for short- and medium-term progress in a way that  also achieves the long-term structural changes needed to address  trafficking. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, agency officials need various types of information to  determine whether they are meeting an agency’s objectives. Without  systematically assessing the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons  Report by, for example, tracking the implementation of recommendations,  State does not know the extent to which the report is having an impact on  punishing traffickers, protecting and assisting victims, and preventing  human trafficking.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Human trafficking causes victims grave personal suffering and negatively  affects the communities involved. Congress has maintained an active interest in human trafficking issues, including mandating and expanding  the Trafficking in Persons Report, which highlights the exploitation of  men, women, and children around the world and the efforts of  governments to combat trafficking. Since our 2006 report, State has  improved its reporting of these efforts. This complex task involves  evaluation of every country against itself—per the minimum standards  outlined in the TVPA and interpreted by State; one country’s efforts are  not directly compared to those of another. In addition, every country is  different, with varying degrees of capacity to address this heinous crime.
Some important shortcomings of the Trafficking in Persons Report could  limit its usefulness as a tool to encourage countries to increase their  efforts to prosecute and punish traffickers, protect and assist victims, and  prevent trafficking. First, despite a legislative requirement to do so, State  has not regularly posted on its public website a detailed description of the  credible evidence supporting the determination to issue a waiver to avoid  an automatic downgrade to Tier 3. This lack of transparency limits the  ability of external stakeholders to understand the justification for these  waivers and their usefulness in the annual review process. In addition, the  Trafficking in Persons Report does not always explicitly communicate  State’s assessment of how the highest-ranked foreign governments met  the minimum standards to combat trafficking. The report also lacks an  explicit explanation for many of the decisions to upgrade or downgrade  countries to a different tier. This lack of clarity could cause confusion  about the status of country actions or State’s decision making and could  limit the ability of State and others to use the report as a diplomatic tool to  advance efforts to combat trafficking. Consistent language could help  clarify State’s assessment of actions governments have taken. Finally,  State has not systematically assessed the effectiveness of the Trafficking  in Persons Report; as a result, State does not know how well the report  achieves the goal of diminishing trafficking in persons throughout the  world. The Trafficking in Persons Report sheds light on the efforts  governments and organizations throughout the world are taking to fight  trafficking. Improvements to the report can increase its usefulness as  another tool in the struggle to protect and provide justice for vulnerable  populations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the transparency and clarity of the Trafficking in Persons  Report and improve its usefulness as a diplomatic tool to encourage  countries to address trafficking, we recommend that the Secretary of  State take the following four actions:  1. On an annual basis, ensure the full implementation of recently revised Trafficking in Persons Report preparation guidance that includes posting a detailed description of the credible evidence used to support automatic downgrade waivers on its publicly available website, in compliance with the 2013 TVPA.
2.
Improve explanations in narratives for Tier 1 rankings, including using consistent language, as feasible, in the Trafficking in Persons Report. 3. Provide an explicit linkage between statements in the Trafficking in Persons Report and decisions to upgrade or downgrade a country’s tier ranking. 4. Take actions, such as tracking the recommendations in the Trafficking in Persons Report, to assess the effectiveness of the report as a tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of State for comment.  In its written comments, reproduced in appendix  V, State concurred with  the recommendations. Specifically, State said that, as our report noted, it  has updated its standard operating procedures to ensure a description of  the credible evidence used to support automatic downgrade waivers, as  required by the TVPA, is posted to State’s website. While updating  State’s procedures is an important step, our recommendation is to ensure  the full implementation of those new procedures. In addition,  State said it  seeks to make each country narrative comprehensive in order to make  the Trafficking in Persons Report as useful as possible to a broad array of  stakeholders and will continue its commitment to ensure each narrative  better serves this purpose. Finally,  State described steps it is taking to  more systematically assess the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons  Report in encouraging governments to address human trafficking,  including the recent establishment of a monitoring and evaluation  position  in the Trafficking Office.
State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addresses (1) the process the Department of State (State)  uses to prepare country narratives and decide tier rankings in the  Trafficking in Persons Report; (2) the extent to which country narratives in  the Trafficking in Persons Report clearly discuss the minimum standards  to combat trafficking as enumerated in the Trafficking Victims Protection  Act (TVPA) and interpreted by State; and (3) the extent to which State  assesses the effectiveness of the Trafficking in Persons Report as a  diplomatic tool to encourage countries to address human trafficking.
To address these objectives, we reviewed documents and relevant laws,  including the TVPA, as amended. We interviewed officials from State’s  Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking Office)  and from all of State’s regional bureaus: the bureaus of African Affairs,  East Asian and Pacific Affairs, European and Eurasian Affairs, Near  Eastern Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and Western  Hemisphere Affairs. In addition, we interviewed State functional offices  and bureaus that have some involvement in the Trafficking in Persons  Report. These include the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; the  Bureau of Political-Military  Affairs; the Office of Foreign Assistance; the  Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and the Bureau of  Population, Refugees, and Migration.  We also selected countries in each  of the tiers that had changed tier in 2015 and interviewed the relevant  officials from each of the U.S. missions and the corresponding country  desk officers. We selected 3 countries that were upgraded to a higher tier  (Portugal, Rwanda, and Uzbekistan) and 2 that were downgraded to a  lower tier (Slovenia and Belize). As much as possible, we selected  countries of different sizes and from different geographic regions. We also  interviewed officials from agencies that have some involvement in the  report process: the Departments of Defense (DOD) and the Treasury  (Treasury), and the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID).  In addition, we held a roundtable discussion with officials from 13  nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), organized by an umbrella group  of NGOs focused on trafficking in persons. We did not select a  generalizable sample of officials to interview.
To assess the process State uses to prepare country narratives and  decide tier rankings, we reviewed the TVPA, as amended; the Trafficking  in Persons Report; and State report preparation guidance documents. We also interviewed cognizant officials from State, DOD, Treasury, and  USAID, as well as from NGOs about the process, including how State  gathers information for the report and how decisions are made on waivers  to avoid automatic downgrades as well as waivers of funding restrictions  for countries in Tier 3.
To assess the extent to which the country narratives in the Trafficking in  Persons Report clearly discuss the minimum standards to combat  trafficking as enumerated in the TVPA and interpreted by State, we  reviewed 185 country narratives in the 2015 Trafficking in Persons  Report. We also reviewed the 35 Tier 1 country narratives in the 2016  Trafficking in Persons Report. We systematically compared the country  narratives with the minimum standards (as interpreted and applied by  State) and determined whether the narratives clearly explain State’s  assessment of the degree of governments’ compliance with them. We  used the following coding system when assessing the country narratives  against State’s interpretation of the minimum standards:  If the country narrative did not mention a standard or criterion, we  coded that as “not mentioned.”
If the country narrative did mention a standard or criterion, we  determined whether the narrative clearly described that the  government complied or did not comply with the standard or criterion  (as interpreted and applied by State).
If we determined that the narrative included language that seemed  consistent with the standard or criterion, we coded that as “met.”
If we determined that the narrative included language that seemed  contradictory to the standard or criterion, we coded that as “not  met.”
In some cases, the narratives mentioned a standard or criterion,  but included ambiguous language that made it unclear if the  standard or criterion were met. We coded those cases as “cannot  determine.”
In addition, for criterion 11 of minimum standard four, we examined the  first sentence of each of the prosecution, protection, and prevention  sections of the country narratives to determine whether they clearly  described that the government made appreciable progress in combating  trafficking when compared with the previous year’s assessment.  Trafficking Office analysts said that governments should show overall  increasing efforts across the prosecution, protection, and prevention  categories to meet this criterion but that increasing efforts in each of  these categories is not necessarily required. We used the following  coding system when assessing the opening sentences:  If the sentence noted that the government made progress, or made  strong, improved, or increased efforts (or other similar words), we  coded that as “met.” We then reported these as country narratives  that generally described increasing efforts.
If the sentence noted that the government made no efforts or  progress, or made decreased or inadequate efforts, we coded that as  “not met.” We also coded as “not met” efforts described as weak or  negligible (or other similar words). We then reported these as country  narratives that generally described decreasing or inadequate efforts.
If the sentence noted that the government sustained, maintained, or  continued its efforts, we coded that as “cannot determine.” We also  coded mixed efforts, or efforts described using words such as modest,  uneven, limited, or minimal as “cannot determine.” We then reported  these as country narratives that generally described mixed or  sustained efforts.
We did not assess whether State had placed countries in the appropriate  tier. Each country narrative was assessed independently by two analysts,  using a detailed rules document developed from State’s guidelines and  through discussions with State. We also analyzed the narratives for the  82 countries that changed tiers in the 2015 and 2016 Trafficking in  Persons reports to assess whether the narratives clearly explain why  State changed a country’s tier.
To assess the extent to which State assesses the effectiveness of the  Trafficking in Persons Report as a diplomatic tool to encourage countries  to address human trafficking, we interviewed officials from State, DOD,  the Treasury, USAID, and representatives of NGOs about the credibility  and effectiveness of the report and how it is used. We also reviewed  documents related to funding restrictions and waivers of funding  restrictions for countries in Tier 3.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to December  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Minimum Standards and Criteria for the Elimination of Trafficking in Persons
subsections: section_title: Minimum standard 4
paragraphs: The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts  of such trafficking.  For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which  the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which  includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe  punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.  For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of  the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately  reflects the heinous nature of the offense.  The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of  trafficking in persons.
In determinations under minimum standard 4, the following factors should be considered as indicia of serious and sustained efforts to  eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons  Criterion 1  Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates and prosecutes acts of severe forms of  trafficking in persons, and convicts and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place  wholly or partly within the territory of the country, including, as appropriate, requiring incarceration of  individuals convicted of such acts. For purposes of the preceding sentence, suspended or significantly  reduced sentences for convictions of principal actors in cases of severe forms of trafficking in persons  shall be considered, on a case-by-case basis, whether to be considered an indicator of serious and  sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. After reasonable requests from the  Department of State for data regarding investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a  government which does not provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such government to  obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or  sentenced such acts. During the periods prior to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and on  June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State  may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has provided  some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the  government is making a good faith effort to collect such data.  Whether the government of the country protects victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and  encourages their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including  provisions for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would face retribution or  hardship, and ensures that victims are not inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized  solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked, including by providing training to law  enforcement and immigration officials regarding the identification and treatment of trafficking victims  using approaches that focus on the needs of the victims.  Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to prevent severe forms of trafficking in  persons, such as measures to inform and educate the public, including potential victims, about the  causes and consequences of severe forms of trafficking in persons, measures to establish the identity  of local populations, including birth registration, citizenship, and nationality, measures to ensure that  its nationals who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission  do not engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking,  a transparent system for remediating or punishing such public officials as a deterrent, measures to  prevent the use of forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards, effective bilateral,  multilateral, or regional information sharing and cooperation arrangements with other countries, and  effective policies or laws regulating foreign labor recruiters and holding them civilly and criminally liable  for fraudulent recruiting.  Whether the government of the country cooperates with other governments in the investigation and  prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons and has entered into bilateral, multilateral, or  regional law enforcement cooperation and coordination arrangements with other countries.
section_title: Criterion 12
paragraphs: Whether the government of the country extradites persons charged with acts of severe forms of  trafficking in persons on substantially the same terms and to substantially the same extent as persons  charged with other serious crimes (or, to the extent such extradition would be inconsistent with the  laws of such country or with international agreements to which the country is a party,  whether the  government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and treaties so as to  permit such extradition).  Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of  severe forms of trafficking in persons and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond  to any such evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation and prosecution of  acts of such trafficking, as well as with the protection of human rights of victims and the internationally  recognized human right to leave any country, including one’s own, and to return to one’s own country.  Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates, prosecutes, convicts, and sentences  public officials, including diplomats and soldiers, who participate in or facilitate severe forms of  trafficking in persons, including nationals of the country who are deployed abroad as part of a  diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate severe forms of  trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, and takes all appropriate measures against  officials who condone such trafficking. A government’s failure to appropriately address public  allegations against such public officials, especially once such officials have returned to their home  countries, shall be considered inaction under these criteria. After reasonable requests from the  Department of State for data regarding such investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences,  a government which does not provide such data consistent with its resources shall be presumed not to  have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts. During the periods prior  to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and on June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until  September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in  the preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the Department of State  regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good faith  effort to collect such data.  Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the country that are non-citizens of  such countries is insignificant.  Whether the government has entered into effective, transparent partnerships, cooperative  arrangements, or agreements that have resulted in concrete and measurable outcomes with:  (A) domestic civil society organizations, private sector entities, or international nongovernmental  organizations, or into multilateral or regional arrangements or agreements, to assist the government’s  efforts to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and punish traffickers; or  (B) the United States toward agreed goals and objectives in the collective fight against trafficking.  Whether the government of the country, consistent with the capacity of such government,  systematically monitors efforts to satisfy the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and  makes available publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.  Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of  trafficking when compared to the assessment in the previous year.  Whether the government of the country has made serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand  for—  (A) commercial sex acts; and  (B) participation in international sex tourism by nationals of the country.
section_title: Appendix III: Tier Ranking by Country in 2016 Trafficking in Persons Report
section_title: Appendix IV: Law Enforcement Data in the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report
paragraphs: The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) requires that the Secretary  of State annually submit a report describing the antitrafficking efforts of  the United States and foreign governments according to the minimum  standards and criteria enumerated in section 108 of the TVPA. The  Department of State (State) interprets this to require that evidence of  trafficking investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences be  considered in State’s assessment of whether governments are making  serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking. Our  analysis of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report found that the country  narratives generally mentioned such data, trends compared to previous  years, as well as details on the legal basis of law enforcement action and  the sufficiency of those laws and their implementation. However, it is  unclear what the data may mean relative to other factors, such as a  government’s capacity or resources to address trafficking, the importance  of cases, or the significance of the data relative to the magnitude of the  trafficking problem in that county.
State bureau officials noted that law enforcement data could be difficult to  interpret, unreliable, or may not provide a useful description of the  situation in the country. For example:  (1) Data may be difficult to interpret. Officials said data on prosecutions  and convictions may not accurately reflect the level of law  enforcement efforts. For example, it may be unclear whether  increased prosecutions and convictions means the trafficking situation  in the country is getting worse or that the government is doing a better  job of enforcing its anti-trafficking laws.  (2) Data may be unreliable. According to officials, it is unclear if the data  are accurate or reliable. For example, the data may not be public, and  countries may lack centralized systems, according to officials. Officials  also noted that an emphasis on increased prosecutions and  convictions might lead to a country arresting innocent people to  increase its numbers.  (3) Data may not provide a useful description of the situation. Officials  said that an emphasis on increased law enforcement numbers may  not accurately reflect a country’s successes or tell the whole story. For  example, a country might have increased its law enforcement efforts  in ways that did not result in increased prosecutions. Further, a  country might be penalized for not having convictions when the cases being prosecuted are taking time to work through the judicial system,  or for not reporting data when lacking the systems needed to do so.
State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking  Office) acknowledges that there are limitations to the law enforcement  data, but maintains that the data are a strength of the report. For  example, State can use the numbers on investigations, prosecutions, and  convictions, when they are too low relative to the trafficking problem,  according to the Trafficking Office, to push governments to do more. The  Trafficking Office also noted that it uses the same methodology every  year so the data are comparable from one year to the next, and that it  does not accept a government’s data without efforts to verify the data, or  noting in the report when there are issues with the data.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Leslie Holen (Assistant Director),  Christina Werth, Julia Jebo Grant, and Esther Toledo made key  contributions to this report. In addition, Lynn Cothern, Martin de Alteriis,  Karen Deans, Neil Doherty, and Grace Lui provided technical assistance.