Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify the Number of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-funded Services
Published: 2017-03-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Human trafficking—the exploitation of a person typically through force, fraud, or coercion for such purposes as forced labor, involuntary servitude or commercial sex—is occurring in the United States. Traffickers seek out persons perceived to be vulnerable. Native Americans (i.e., American Indians or Alaska Natives) are considered to be a vulnerable population. DOJ, DHS, and the Department of the Interior investigate human trafficking crimes. Primarily, DOJ and HHS provide grants to fund victim services.
GAO was asked to examine Native American human trafficking. This report focuses on federal efforts to address human trafficking, including the extent to which (1) agencies collect and maintain data on investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of location and (2) federal grant programs are available to help address such trafficking, and how many Native American trafficking victims have received assistance through these programs. GAO reviewed human trafficking investigation and prosecution data from fiscal years 2013 to 2016; reviewed solicitations for human trafficking-related grant programs; and interviewed grant program officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: All four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case management systems whether a human trafficking offense was involved in the case. With the exception of ICE, these agencies are also required to record in their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. ICE officials explained that the agency does not record this information because, unlike BIA and the FBI, ICE is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country. Typically, ICE would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if specifically invited by a tribe to do so. Further, with the exception of BIA, these agencies do not require their agents or attorneys to collect or record Native American status of victims in their cases due to concerns about victim privacy and lack of relevance of the victim's race to the substance of the investigation or prosecution.
The Departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal years 2013 through 2016 that could help address Native American human trafficking. For example, 21 of these grant programs, which were administered by DOJ and HHS, could be used to provide services to Native American human trafficking victims. However, the total number of Native American victims who received services under these grant programs is unknown. HHS is developing a data collection tool that grantees can use to report information on human trafficking victims served, including Native American status of victims. DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) requires grantees to report Native American status of victims served, but not by type of crime. DOJ's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) do not require grantees to collect and report Native American status of victims served. However, in fiscal year 2017, OVC began providing recipients of human trafficking-specific grant programs the option to report the race or Native American status of victims served. While Native American status may not generally be a factor for determining whether a victim can receive services, it may be a factor for determining how best to assist this particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research efforts for Native Americans and other vulnerable populations is an area for improvement for the federal government. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that quality information should be used to achieve objectives based on relevant data from reliable sources. Without collecting data on the Native American status of victims served, federal agencies will not know the extent to which they are achieving government-wide strategic goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable populations, including Native American human trafficking victims.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOJ require its grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served and, as appropriate, the Native American status of those victims. DOJ partially concurred with the recommendation. GAO clarified the recommendation and maintains action is needed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Human trafficking—the exploitation  of a person typically through force,  fraud, or coercion for such purposes as forced labor, involuntary servitude  or commercial sex—is occurring in the United States. Human trafficking  victims include women, men and transgender individuals, as well as  children, foreign nationals and U.S. citizens or nationals, who are diverse  with respect to race and ethnicity, among other factors. According to the  Attorney General’s fiscal year 2015 annual report to Congress on human  trafficking, traffickers seek out persons perceived to be vulnerable.  Vulnerability  comes in many forms, including age (minors), poverty,  homelessness, chemical dependency, prior experiences of abuse, and  lack of resources or support systems, among others. Native Americans  are a vulnerable population. For example, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, in 2010, 28 percent of Native Americans were living in  poverty, compared to 15 percent of the general population. Also,  according to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence  Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  about 27 percent of Native American women have been raped in their  lifetime compared to 18 percent of women, overall.
Furthermore, according to several academic studies, Native Americans  have endured a succession of traumatic events that have had lasting  consequences for community members. For example, Native Americans  have been subjected to a number of assimilation policies—including  boarding schools, relocation, involuntary sterilization, and forced  adoptions, which have disrupted family, kinship, community structures,  and governance. The historical trauma that the Native American  community has faced is critical to understanding the vulnerability of  today’s Native men, women, and children to sex and labor trafficking in  the United States.
You asked us to research human trafficking in Indian country and of  Native Americans, in general, including demographic information on  victims, services available to victims, and efforts to increase prosecutions.  This report focuses on federal efforts to address human trafficking in  Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of location. We will  issue a second report later this year that will include perspectives from  tribal and local law enforcement agencies and victim service providers on  human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of  location. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions:  (1) To what extent do federal agencies collect and maintain data on  investigations and prosecutions of human trafficking in Indian  country  or of Native Americans regardless of location?  (2) To what extent are federal grant programs available to help address  human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless  of location, and how many Native American trafficking victims have  received assistance through these programs?
Federal law defines the term “Indian country” as all land within the limits of any Indian  reservation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all dependent Indian  communities within U.S. borders, and all existing Indian allotments, including any rights-of- way running through an allotment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151.
Throughout this report, we generally use the term “Native American” in reference to an  American Indian or Alaska Native, including persons who have identified themselves as  Native American or individuals whom federal agencies have identified as Native American  based on relevant legal authorities and agency procedures. The terms “Indian” and  “Alaska Native” are defined under federal law for various purposes. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. §  3102(16); 20 U.S.C. § 1059c(b)(1); 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301(4), 1903(3), 2201(2), 4103(10),  5129; 42 U.S.C. § 13925(a)(13); 43 U.S.C. § 1602(b). The U.S. Census Bureau has noted  that “American Indian or Alaska Native” refers to a person having origins in any of the  original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who  maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. interviewed officials from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General,  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Civil Rights Division/Criminal  Section, Criminal Division/Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,  Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the Justice Management  Division. We identified these agencies as having responsibility to  investigate and prosecute human trafficking based on our prior work.
To address the second objective, we reviewed fiscal year 2014 and 2015  human trafficking grant programs identified through our prior human  trafficking work to determine which of these grant programs could be  used to address human trafficking in Indian country or of Native  Americans regardless of location. To identify any additional grant  programs for which funding was awarded in fiscal year 2016 that could be  used to address human trafficking in Indian country or of Native  Americans regardless of location, we reviewed grant solicitations on  DOJ’s and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS)  websites and interviewed relevant grant officials. We determined that a  grant program would be relevant for the purposes of our review if the  grant solicitation (1) explicitly identified combatting human trafficking or  assisting human trafficking victims as an allowable use and identified  tribal entities as eligible recipients or (2) exclusively identified Native  American crime victims (regardless of the type of crime) as eligible  beneficiaries. It is possible that there are some programs that were not  identified by granting agencies or by our analysis of public records. Also,  there are additional grant programs that could be used to assist victims of  crime in general, but we did not include those programs in our scope if  human trafficking victims were not explicitly identified in the solicitation.  We reviewed the solicitations for each of the grant programs we identified  to determine the allowable uses for the funding (e.g., services to victims  versus training for law enforcement). In addition, we interviewed federal  officials responsible for administering human trafficking-related grant  programs to learn whether the granting agencies required grantees to  report the Native American status of human trafficking victims they  served. We evaluated the granting agencies’ data collection requirements  against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  regarding the use of quality information.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to March 2017  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Indian Country and the Native American Population
paragraphs: As of January 2017, there were 567 federally recognized American Indian  and Alaska Native tribes and villages. According to BIA, there were  approximately 326 Indian land areas in the United States that are  administered as federal Indian reservations or other tribal lands (e.g.,  reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.).  These land areas can generally be referred to as Indian country, which  spans more than 56 million acres and 36 states, and varies in size,  demographics, and location. For example, the Navajo Nation consists of  approximately 27,000 square miles, whereas certain areas of Indian  country in California comprise less than 1 square mile. The 2010  Census found that approximately 169,000 Native Americans lived on the  Navajo reservation, while other areas of Indian country have fewer than  50 Native American residents. Indian country is often in remote, rural  locations, or may also be located near urban areas. Indian country may  have a mixture of Native American and non-Native American residents.  Figure 1 illustrates where Indian country is located in the contiguous  United States as of 2010.
According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million people in the United States  identified as Native American, either alone or in combination with one or  more other races. Out of this total, 2.9 million people—0.9 percent of the  U.S. population at the time—identified as Native American alone. At the  time of the 2010 Census, more than 1.1 million Native Americans resided  on tribal lands. Figure 2 shows where Native Americans resided in the  United States at the time of the 2010 Census.
section_title: Federal Law on Human Trafficking
paragraphs: Federal law generally recognizes two forms of human trafficking—sex  trafficking and labor trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of  2000 (TVPA), as amended, defines human trafficking under the term  “severe forms of trafficking in persons.” Pursuant to the TVPA, as  amended, sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation,  provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose  of a commercial sex act. Sex trafficking is a “severe” form of trafficking  when it involves force, fraud or coercion, or where the victim has not  attained 18 years of age, in which case force, fraud or coercion are not  necessary elements. The TVPA, as amended, defines labor related  trafficking generally as the recruitment, harboring, transportation,  provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use  of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary  servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
Federal efforts to combat and prevent human trafficking in the United  States have evolved over time, including various laws that have  established federal agencies’ roles in these efforts. During the 1990s, the  United States began to take steps to address human trafficking at home  and abroad. Over the past few decades, Congress has taken numerous  legislative actions to help combat human trafficking and ensure that  victims have access to needed services. In October 2000, the TVPA was  enacted to combat trafficking in persons, ensure just and effective  punishment of traffickers and protect trafficking victims. Among other  things, the TVPA, as amended, makes it illegal to knowingly or recklessly  use force, fraud, or coercion to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide,  obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, or solicit any person to engage in a  commercial sex act. In addition, the TVPA makes it a crime to use  certain means, including force, threats of force, physical restraint, or  serious harm or threats of such harm, to knowingly provide or obtain  persons for any labor or services. TVPA reauthorization acts were  enacted in 2003, 2006 and 2008; and, in 2013, provisions of the TVPA, its  reauthorizations, and other related laws, were further amended.
In 2015, the President signed into law the Justice for Victims of Trafficking  Act of 2015. Among other things, this act required the Attorney General  to ensure that law enforcement officers and federal prosecutors receive  anti-trafficking training; required the Federal Judicial Center, the research  and education agency of the federal judicial system, to provide training for  judges on ordering restitution for victims of certain trafficking-related  offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, U.S. Code; mandated that the  Secretary of Homeland Security implement a human trafficking training  program for department personnel; required the Attorney General to  implement and maintain a national strategy for combating human  trafficking; established the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund to  supplement existing statutorily authorized grants or activities; and  amended the federal definition of child abuse to include human trafficking.
section_title: Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed in Indian Country
paragraphs: As a general principle, the federal government recognizes Native  American tribes as “distinct, independent political communities” with  inherent powers of self-government to regulate their “internal and social  relations,” which include enacting substantive law over internal matters and enforcing that law in their own forums. However, the Supreme  Court has recognized that Congress has plenary and exclusive authority  to regulate or modify the powers of self-government that tribes otherwise  possess, and has exercised this authority to establish an intricate web of  jurisdiction over crime in Indian  country.
As determined by relevant statutes, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in  Indian country depends on several factors, including the Native American  status of the victim and alleged offender, the nature of the crime, and  whether jurisdiction has been conferred on a particular entity (e.g., the  state in which Indian country is located) by, for example, federal treaty or  statute. The General Crimes Act, as amended, extends the criminal  laws of the federal government into Indian  country and generally  establishes federal criminal jurisdiction where either, but not both, the  alleged offender or the victim is Native American. In addition, federal  criminal jurisdiction may attach to a crime, such as a human trafficking  offense committed in Indian  country, if it affects interstate or foreign  commerce. With the exception of certain circumstances involving  domestic or dating violence offenses or violations of protection orders,  tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Native  American offenders, even if the victim is Native American and the crime  occurred in Indian country. Rather, non-Native American offenders who  commit crimes against Native Americans may be prosecuted by the  federal government, or by a state government, where jurisdiction has  been conferred on a state.
section_title: Federal Agencies Responsible for Investigating and Prosecuting Human Trafficking Crimes in Indian Country
paragraphs: Several components within DOJ, DHS, and DOI have responsibility for  investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes in Indian country,  as shown in figure 3.
The FBI has investigative responsibilities for Indian country where the  federal government has criminal jurisdiction, and has assigned more than  100 agents and 40 victim assistance staff, located in 19 of its 56 field  offices, to work Indian country cases full time. In addition, the FBI’s  headquarters-based Indian country Crimes Unit promotes liaison and  intelligence sharing through its Safe Trails Task Forces and working  groups and provides training to Indian country law enforcement in  partnership with DOJ and BIA.
BIA is statutorily responsible for enforcing federal law and, with the  consent of the tribe, tribal law in Indian country. BIA supports tribes in  their efforts to ensure public safety and administer justice within Indian  country, as well as to provide related services directly or to enter into  contracts or compacts with federally recognized tribes to administer the  law enforcement program. To that end, BIA’s Office of Justice Services  (OJS) provides direct law enforcement services for 40 tribes. Specifically,  BIA provides both uniformed police and criminal investigative services for  32 of these tribes, and criminal investigative services for 8 of these tribes,  with a total of 301 uniformed police, 62 criminal investigators, and 19  victim assistance staff. Two hundred three tribes have their own law  enforcement agencies that are operated by the tribes and funded either  by contracts or compacts, or by the tribes, themselves. Further, the  agency is responsible for developing and providing training and technical  assistance to tribal law enforcement, and for consulting with tribal leaders  to develop regulatory policies and other actions that affect public safety and justice in Indian country. Unlike FBI and BIA, ICE is not generally  involved in criminal investigations in Indian country but may assist with  criminal investigations at the request of the tribe, according to ICE HSI  officials.
Forty-nine of the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) include Indian  country within their jurisdiction. Each of these USAOs has at least one  Assistant U.S. Attorney appointed as Tribal Liaison. Each Tribal Liaison is  responsible for most dealings with tribes in their district. Officials noted  that some districts with large amounts of Indian country have more than  one Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the position of Tribal Liaison.  According to Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA)  officials, there are approximately 168 attorneys, including 62 attorneys  who have been designated as Tribal Liaisons, who handle a significant  portion of Indian country cases as part of their work duties in these 49  offices. Also in these offices, there are 78 victim assistance staff,  including 12 victim assistance staff who are exclusively assigned to work  Indian country matters, who assist victims and work on cases arising from  Indian country. However, the other attorneys and victim assistance staff  may also assist with Indian country cases, when needed. The Civil Rights  Division and Criminal Division within DOJ may also prosecute human  trafficking cases; however, officials from these offices stated that any  Indian country human trafficking prosecutions they conduct would be  done in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Offices that have jurisdiction  in the geographical areas where the crime took place.
section_title: Federal Agencies Responsible for Administering Grant Programs to Address Human Trafficking
paragraphs: In addition to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes,  federal agencies, primarily DOJ and HHS, support efforts to combat  human trafficking and assist victims. Several components within DOJ,  including the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the Office of  Justice Programs, which includes the Office of Juvenile Justice and  Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC),  the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the National Institute of  Justice (NIJ), provide grants to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies combat human trafficking and to support  nongovernmental organizations and others in assisting trafficking victims  or conducting research on human trafficking in the United States. HHS  provides grant funding to entities to provide services and support for  trafficking victims, primarily through the Administration for Children and  Families (ACF), which includes the Office on Trafficking in Persons  (OTIP), the Children’s Bureau, the Family and Youth Services Bureau,  and the Administration for Native Americans. These services include  housing, employment, education, food, clothing, job training, medical  care, and child care. Further, OTIP coordinates anti-trafficking responses  across multiple systems of care. Specifically, HHS builds the capacity of  health care providers, child welfare, social service providers and other  first responders likely to interact with potential victims of trafficking  through a variety of grant programs.
section_title: While Federal Agencies Generally Maintain Data on Human Trafficking Cases in Indian Country, They Do Not Maintain Data on Native American Status of Victims
subsections: section_title: Three of the Four Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies Maintain Data on Human Trafficking Cases in Indian Country
paragraphs: All four agencies that have the authority to investigate or prosecute  human trafficking in Indian country—FBI, BIA, ICE HSI, and the U.S.  Attorneys’ Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case  management systems if a human trafficking offense was involved in the  case. Three of these agencies—FBI, BIA, and the USAOs—also record in  their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian  country. According to officials from these three agencies, they record  whether the crime took place in Indian country to help establish whether  they have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute the crime. ICE HSI  officials explained that they do not have a field for Indian  country in their  case management system because, unlike BIA and the FBI, ICE HSI is  not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country; rather,  ICE HSI would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if  specifically invited by a tribe to do so.
Prosecutions are cases where a charging document has been filed in district court.  GAO-16-555.
According to USAO officials, one of the two prosecutions resulted in a conviction. applicability of those efforts to the Native American population.) Table 1  provides the number of federal human trafficking investigations and  prosecutions in Indian country, by agency, from fiscal years 2013 through  2016.
section_title: Most of the Federal Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies that Address Human Trafficking Do Not Consistently Collect Native American Status of Victims in Their Cases
paragraphs: Three of the four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human  trafficking-related crimes do not require their agents or attorneys to  consistently collect or record the race or ethnicity, including Native  American status, of victims in their cases. Therefore, the total number of  federal human trafficking investigations and prosecutions that involved  Native American victims is unknown. Agents and attorneys may  voluntarily collect this information and record it in their case management  systems when there is a designated data field. The FBI and USAOs that  have Indian country in their jurisdiction are statutorily required to collect  and report information on victims’ Native American status when they  decline to refer or prosecute an Indian country case, but not otherwise.  Based on the limited data that were available, federal agencies initiated a  minimum of 6 human trafficking investigations that involved Native American victims from fiscal years 2013 to 2016—the FBI Civil Rights  Unit initiated 5 investigations and BIA initiated 1. Table 2 shows the  policies of the investigative and prosecutorial agencies with respect to  collecting information on victims’ Native American status.
Federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies provided two primary  reasons why they do not collect information on the Native American  status of victims, including concerns about relevance of Native American  status to the substance of the case and victim privacy. For example,  officials told us that Native American status of victims is only relevant for  Indian country cases because it is necessary for establishing which law  enforcement agency has jurisdiction over the case. According to EOUSA  officials, Native American status has no impact on whether the federal  government can investigate or prosecute cases outside of Indian country.  Additionally,  EOUSA officials said that when prosecutors have to  determine the Native American status of victims in Indian  country, they do  not base that determination on the victim’s appearance or self-reporting.  Instead, prosecutors must review tribal enrollment documents or obtain  information on the victim’s blood quantum, and carrying out this process  for victims outside of Indian country would be arduous. Similarly, FBI  officials reported that they only collect information that is necessary for  the investigation, which does not include the victim’s race or Native  American status. Further, officials from all of the investigative and  prosecutorial agencies raised concerns related to either the sensitivity of  asking victims about their race or Native American status or collecting  additional personal information about the victim that could make them  identifiable to the defendant or others during the discovery phase of a  criminal trial.
section_title: At Least 50 Federal Grant Programs Can Be Used to Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, but Number of Native American Victims Served Is Unknown
subsections: section_title: DOJ, HHS, and DHS Grant Programs that Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans Can Be Used to Foster Collaboration and Provide Training and Victim Assistance, among Other Things
paragraphs: DOJ, HHS, and DHS administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal  years 2014 through 2016 that could help address human trafficking in  Indian country or of Native Americans. Of the 50 grant programs, 45  specifically mention addressing human trafficking as an allowable use of  funding and identify tribal entities as eligible recipients. The remaining five  specifically mention assisting Native American crime victims as an  allowable use, although human trafficking is not explicitly identified, as  shown in figure 4 below. However, the total number of Native American  human trafficking victims who received services under these grant  programs is unknown.
Of the 45 grant programs that explicitly mention addressing human  trafficking as an allowable use, 2 exclusively address human trafficking of  Native Americans. In fiscal year 2016, OVC established two Project  Beacon grant programs that are designed to increase the quantity and  quality of services available to Native American victims of sex trafficking  who reside in urban areas. One program offers qualified grant award  recipients the opportunity to develop comprehensive, culturally  appropriate services for Native American victims, while the other program  was intended to provide an award to a qualified organization to provide  training and technical assistance to organizations that received a direct  services award. OVC made three awards under the direct services  Project Beacon program fiscal year 2016, but was unable to make an  award under the Project Beacon training and technical assistance  program.
The 50 grant programs provide funding for various categories of activities,  including collaboration activities, research, victim services, public  awareness and training or technical assistance. A breakdown of the  allowable uses is outlined in figure 5 below. (See app. II for a list of all  grant programs and how the funding can be used.)
Collaboration and partnerships: 42 of the 50 grant programs allow funds  to be used for collaboration between or within law enforcement and  service providers through mechanisms such as task forces, coalitions,  and partnerships. For example, the Tribal Governments Program,  administered by OVW, strengthens the tribal criminal justice system’s  response to human trafficking of Native American women by facilitating  collaborative agreements between tribal law enforcement and tribal  prosecution, and federal, state, or local partners to address sex  trafficking, among other crimes. Another example is ACF’s Domestic  Victims of Human Trafficking grant program, which requires grantees to  provide a strategy for expanding victim service partnerships to enhance  community response, including victims in historically marginalized  populations like tribal communities.
Data, Research, and Evaluation: 19 of the 50 grant programs include an  element of data collection on human trafficking cases, research on human  trafficking, or evaluation of best practices. OVC’s Fellowship Program  was established in 2002. Fellowships are competitively awarded through  the OVC grant process. Fellows provide direct operational assistance to  OVC in designing and developing innovative or enhanced service  initiatives, management systems, training programs, capacity-building  initiatives, and program evaluation efforts.
Victim services: 21 of the 50 grant programs can be used to provide  services directly to victims of human trafficking, including Native  Americans. Services include housing, health care, mental health and  substance abuse services, and legal services. For example, the Social  and Economic Development Strategies grant program, administered by  ACF, can be used to develop and implement culturally appropriate  strategies to provide outreach and services for Native American victims of  sex trafficking.
Public awareness: 26 of the 50 grants may be used to raise public  awareness of human trafficking. For example, OVW administers the  Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions program, which  works to design and conduct public education campaigns to increase the  awareness of crimes against Native American women, including sex  trafficking.
Training and technical assistance: 40 of the 50 grant programs may be  used to provide training and technical assistance to service providers or  law enforcement stakeholders on elements of identifying and serving  victims of human trafficking. For example, the Defending Childhood  American Indian/Alaska  Native Policy Initiative  program, administered by  OJJDP, awards funding to entities that will design and implement training  and technical assistance for tribal sites according to their needs.
section_title: DOJ and HHS Do Not Require Grantees to Report Data on the Number of Native American Victims Served
paragraphs: Among the 21 grant programs administered by DOJ and HHS that  allowed for the provision of victim services, the number of Native  American human trafficking victims who received services is unknown  because agencies generally did not require grantees to report the Native  American status of victims served. For example, 3 of the 21 grant  programs—all of which are administered by OVW—currently require  grantees to report the Native American status of victims served; that is, if  the information is available and can be provided without compromising  the victim’s safety or confidentiality. The remaining 18 grant programs  do not require grantees to report the Native American status of victims  served; however, 5 of these programs exclusively fund services for Native  American victims, in which case the Native American status of victims  served would have been determined for the purpose of program eligibility.  However, even when grantees are required to report the Native American  status of victims served or it is inherent in their reporting, grantees are  only required to do so in the aggregate and not by the type of crime to  which the victim was subjected. Therefore, the grantee data cannot be  used to determine the number of Native American human trafficking  victims that were served. Table 3 describes whether the agencies and  components require grantees to report the Native American status of  victims served.
In fiscal year 2015, HHS began its Human Trafficking Data Collection  Project to establish uniform data collection across OTIP grant programs.   According to HHS officials, the intent was to ultimately develop an  interoperable platform that would ensure standard collection of data  among a broader group of HHS grantees—including grantees that receive  funding from other HHS components—that provide services to victims of  trafficking and populations at high risk for trafficking. Grantees will be  asked to report data on demographics and predisposing factors, services  provided, costs of victim and survivor care, and unmet service needs.  This would include capturing data on victims’ race and ethnicity, such as  Native American status and tribal affiliation. HHS expects to pilot test  these uniform data elements and make them available for public  comment in fiscal year 2017, after which HHS may make revisions,  submit the revised tool to the Office of Management and Budget for  review, and then make the tool available to grantees.
According to OVC and OJJDP officials, they do not require grantees to  collect and report victims’ Native American status because it is generally  not an eligibility requirement for receiving victim services. They also  raised concerns about whether including the victims’ race or Native  American status in grant reports, which could be made available to the  public, could compromise the victims’ confidentiality. According to  OJJDP, its grantees are required to submit descriptive demographic data  for youth victims served, and those data are included in OJJDP’s  performance measurement system. However, this system does not  include data on the Native American status of youth victims served;  rather, grantees identify whether or not they provided services to any  Native American youth victims during the reporting period. According to  OVC, beginning in fiscal year 2017, OVC provided an optional category in  the Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) to allow grantees  of human trafficking-specific grant programs—that is, grant programs  funded by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—to report the race or  Native American status of victims served. However, OVC does not  require grantees to report the race of human trafficking victims because  race is not a performance measure for OVC grantees. Also, OVC officials  stated that in communities with few members of a particular race, if  grantees have just one victim of that race in their data, people may  correctly guess the identity of that victim. Similarly, OVW noted the  importance of balancing the need for monitoring data with the provision of  timely, accessible, and confidential services.  OVW officials stated that  OVW maintains this balance by collecting an aggregate number of Native  American victims served during each 6-month reporting period rather than  collecting this information for each type of victimization—including sex  trafficking—which OVW officials believe could jeopardize victim  confidentiality, especially in rural tribal communities. We understand the  importance of maintaining victim confidentiality, in which case for  grantees concerned that reporting the number of Native American human  trafficking victims served could reveal the identity of those victims, OVC,  OJJDP, and OVW could consider exempting them from any such  reporting requirement on a case-by-case basis.
Also, while Native American status is generally not a factor for  determining whether a victim can receive services or relevant for current  performance measures, it may be a factor for determining how best to  assist this particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal  Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the  United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research  efforts for vulnerable populations, which include Native Americans, is an  area for improvement for the federal government. The plan also states  that vulnerable populations, including Native Americans, are often under- identified as victims, which leads to unreliable statistics. The plan states  that the federal government acknowledges that it currently does not have  enough information on human trafficking and service provision to Native  Americans and other vulnerable populations to begin making  recommendations on evidence-based practices to the field. It goes on to  state that vulnerable populations require more attention and focus so that  responses to human trafficking are effective and federal agencies are  committed to spending the time and resources to learn more. The plan  establishes goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable  populations.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  quality information should be used to achieve objectives based on  relevant data from reliable sources. Agencies are expected to identify  the information requirements needed to meet their objectives and on a  timely basis obtain the relevant data based on the requirements. Without  collecting data on the Native American status of victims served, federal  agencies will not know the extent to which they are achieving  government-wide strategic goals to provide and improve services to  vulnerable populations, including Native American crime victims.
In addition, awareness about whether a victim of human trafficking is  Native American can be helpful to ensure culturally appropriate practices  are made available in the healing and recovery process. HHS’  Administration for Native Americans reported that there is a need for  culturally relevant and trauma-informed approaches when assisting  victims. For example, using women’s circles and other culturally  appropriate practices have proven helpful in the healing process for  Native American victims. According to a Trafficking in Indian Country brief  released by the National Congress for American Indians, many Native  American human trafficking victims felt they owed their survival to Native  cultural practices and most wished for Native healing approaches to be  integrated with mainstream services.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Native Americans experience several risk factors that make them  vulnerable to becoming victims of human trafficking. Federal agencies  responsible for addressing human trafficking have acknowledged that  Native Americans are a vulnerable population and have set agency and  government-wide goals to help ensure public safety in Indian country and  protect Native Americans from human trafficking and other crimes.  Federal agencies that have the authority to investigate and prosecute  human trafficking crimes in Indian country generally record in their case  management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country.  They do not always record the Native American status of victims,  however, because that information may not generally be relevant to the  case or it may have the potential to identify particular victims. Native  American status may have relevance with respect to the provision of  services, nonetheless. While victim confidentiality must be protected  accordingly, the absence of data collection by granting agencies  regarding the Native American status of human trafficking victims served  hinders their ability to determine whether their victim assistance goals are  being met. It may also make it difficult to determine where to focus their  efforts on providing culturally appropriate services that have been shown  to aid in the healing and restoration of Native American victims of crime.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that DOJ is contributing to efforts to improve data  collection and service provision to Native Americans, we recommend that:  the Director of OVW require grantees to report the number of human  trafficking victims served using grant funding, and, as appropriate, the  Native American status of those victims; and  the Assistant Attorney General for OJP direct OVC and OJJDP to  require their grantees to report the number of human trafficking  victims served using grant funding, and, as appropriate, the Native  American status of those victims.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a copy of our report to HHS, DHS, DOI, and DOJ for review  and comment. DHS and DOI stated that they did not have any comments  on our report. HHS and DOJ provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. DOJ also provided written comments, which  are reproduced in appendix III.
DOJ partially agreed with our recommendations. In its comments, DOJ  indicated a willingness to implement the first part of the  recommendations, which is to require grantees to report the number of  human trafficking victims served with grant funding. However, DOJ  disagreed with the second part of the recommendations, which is to  require grantees to report the Native American status of those victims. As  we stated in our report, OVC currently requires its grantees to report the  number of human trafficking victims served through the Trafficking  Information Management System (TIMS). According to DOJ, OJJDP  could require grantees for its human trafficking-related grant programs to  report the number of human trafficking victims served through OJJDP’s  Data Collection and Technical Assistance Tool (DCTAT). Similarly, DOJ  stated that OVW will begin asking grantees to include the number of sex  trafficking victims served in their grantee progress reports.
However, DOJ identified several reasons why OVC, OJJDP, and OVW  should not require grantees to report the Native American status of  human trafficking victims served, including concerns about overburdening  grantees, having a chilling effect on the delivery of services, and victim  confidentiality. With respect to overburdening grantees, DOJ stated that it  would be hard to justify collecting Native American status solely for  victims of human trafficking and not for victims of others types of crime.  Therefore, according to DOJ, implementing our recommendation would  lead the components to collect demographic information for all types of  victimizations, thereby greatly increasing the burden on service providers.
We believe that collecting demographic information on victims of all types  of crimes could be very informative; however, our recommendation is that  DOJ collect demographic data specific to its human trafficking programs,  as appropriate. DOJ has identified combating human trafficking as a  priority for the department, and the Federal Strategic Action Plan on  Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States identifies  Native Americans as a vulnerable population. Therefore, we believe that  collecting additional information specifically on Native American human  trafficking victims is justifiable. In addition, based on preliminary results of  a survey we conducted as part of a related review, it appears that some  of the DOJ- and HHS-funded victim service providers do collect  information on the Native American status of victims served by type of  victimization. We surveyed 315 victim service providers that received  funding from either DOJ or HHS in fiscal year 2015; 162 of the providers  responded. Of the 162, 67 reported that they provided services to at least  one human trafficking victim, and 58 were able to tell us whether any of  the human trafficking victims they served were Native American; 9 were  not able to tell us.
Concerning the potential chilling effect on service delivery, according to  DOJ, asking victims about their race could cause confusion, fear, or make  the individual  less likely to engage in services. Therefore, DOJ is opposed  to requiring victims to disclose their race, but acknowledged that if victims  voluntarily disclose this information, grantees could include victims’ race  when reporting to DOJ. Similarly, with respect to victim confidentiality,  DOJ stated that collecting Native American status by type of victimization  creates a much greater—and unnecessary—risk that a particular victim  could be publicly identified, especially in rural tribal communities. Also,  according to DOJ, OVW grantees are statutorily prohibited from reporting  a victim’s personally identifying  information to OVW for grant monitoring  purposes. It is not our position that victims should be required to disclose  their race in order to receive services, and that certainly was not the intent  of our recommendation. However, we do think there are situations where  it may be appropriate to ask the victim about their race. We also  understand that there may be instances where reporting the Native  American status of human trafficking victims could, on its own, or in  conjunction with other information, identify individual  victims. As we stated  in our report, the components could exempt grantees from reporting  Native American status on a case-by-case basis if such instances arise.  To help ensure that our recommendation is not interpreted to mean that  DOJ must require human trafficking victims to disclose their Native  American status or that grantees must report Native American status,  even if doing so significantly increases the risk that the victim could be  identified, we modified our recommendation. Specifically, we clarified that  agencies should require grantees to report the Native American status of  human trafficking victims “as appropriate.”
DOJ identified other reasons why requiring grantees to report the Native  American status of human trafficking victims was not necessary. One  benefit to collecting this information that we cited in our report is that DOJ  would be able to help ensure that Native American victims are receiving  culturally appropriate services. However, DOJ stated that OVC and OVW  already use grantee progress reports to monitor whether grantees are  providing culturally appropriate services and to identify promising  practices for doing so. Further, DOJ stated that it funds training and  technical assistance for grantees on providing culturally appropriate  services to Native Americans. We are encouraged by DOJ’s efforts  related to ensuring that Native Americans are receiving culturally- appropriate services, and we think having information on which of their  grantees are serving Native American victims, and how many victims  there are, could enhance their efforts.
Finally, DOJ stated that the utility of the data that grantees would report  on Native American status of human trafficking victims would be limited  because it would not be statistically relevant. Specifically, grantee data  would not identify all Native American human trafficking victims, but just  those served with DOJ funding. DOJ said that efforts underway by the  Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice would  produce more meaningful data. We recognize that grantee data cannot  be used to determine the prevalence of human trafficking of Native  Americans nationwide. That was never the intent of the recommendation,  especially considering the challenges that DOJ and others have  previously identified with respect to estimating prevalence of human  trafficking, in general. Rather, we recognized that the federal strategic  action plan articulated a need for more information on Native American  victims of human trafficking, and collecting information on the extent to  which DOJ funding is being used to provide services to this population is  an incremental step towards bridging this information gap.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the  appropriate congressional committees; the Attorney General; the  Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the  Interior. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to Develop Methodologies to Determine Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and Applicability to Native American Populations
paragraphs: Federal agencies have several efforts under way that either assess the  prevalence of human trafficking for a particular subgroup of the population  or aim to develop a methodology or tool that could be used to determine  prevalence, in general. From fiscal years 2012 through 2015, the National  Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Trafficking in Persons grants to San  Diego State University, Abt Associates, Inc. and Northeastern University  for this purpose. While none of the current efforts are designed to  determine prevalence among Native Americans, specifically, grantees  told us some of the methodologies could have potential to be used for  such an effort.
Between 2009 and 2015, San Diego State University has been involved  in three projects to determine prevalence of labor and sex trafficking for  specific populations. The Labor Trafficking among Migrant Workers in  North Carolina project sought to identify indicators that could be used by  state and local law enforcement as signals that labor trafficking may be  taking place in their communities. The goals of the study were to: (1)  document the characteristics and indicators of labor trafficking, including  component crimes, collateral crimes, and other community impacts; and  (2) provide law enforcement with actionable knowledge to help identify  labor trafficking. Researchers interviewed 380 farmworkers, who were  attending migrant worker and Hispanic/Latino festivals or living at farm  labor camps, and collected data on demographic characteristics (age,  sex, race/ethnicity), citizenship and language spoken at home,  unemployment and agricultural business patterns, crime, communicable  disease, and pregnancy and infant mortality. According to researchers,  these data allowed them to develop a comprehensive description of  farmworkers who are being exploited and may be in labor trafficking  situations. The study was completed in August 2013.
The second San Diego State University project, Looking for a Hidden  Population: Trafficking of Migrant Laborers in San Diego County, applied  respondent-driven sampling and unique access to migrant communities in  San Diego County, California, to produce valid estimates on the scope of  labor trafficking activities in one of the largest Spanish-speaking  immigrant destinations.   The study found that 30 percent of  undocumented migrant laborers were victims of trafficking, 55 percent  were victims of other abuses, and about half of these victimization  experiences occurred within the past 12 months. The study found that the  rate of trafficking violations varied markedly across business sectors that  typically hire unauthorized migrant workers. The construction and  janitorial services sector had the most reported trafficking violations and  labor abuses across these business sectors.
The third project, Sex Trafficking in Tijuana, Mexico, involved in-depth  interviews with semi-structured and open-ended questions, field  observations, and conversations with major players in the prostitution  business, law enforcement and advocacy groups. The main emphasis in  the recruitment of participants in the project was to maximize the range  and variety of the search for discernable patterns of trafficking activities  and the operation of the sex industry in Tijuana. According to  documentation from the study, although hundreds of interviews were  conducted with a wide variety of individuals, the study does not intend to  produce statistical estimates about the scope of sex trafficking activities  or any other aspect of the sex industry in Tijuana. The identified cases of  sex trafficking happening in Tijuana were limited to individual pimps (male  and female) who were adept at seeking out women in vulnerable  situations and controlling them through emotional manipulation, social  isolation, and/or violence.
In 2015, NIJ also awarded a Trafficking in Persons grant to Abt  Associates. The purpose of Abt’s research project, Advancing Human  Trafficking Prevalence Estimation, is to develop a methodology to  calculate prevalence of human trafficking. Abt has selected county-level  sites to test a methodology that, if successful, could be used to estimate  human trafficking at the city, state, or national level. Further, according to  Abt, if targeted appropriately or conducted on a large enough scale, the methodology could be used to estimate human trafficking of Native  Americans or in Indian country. Abt researcher told us they plan to use a  screening tool developed by the Vera Institute of Justice to determine  how many individuals who are in jails, shelters, or have recently visited  emergency rooms are human trafficking victims (i.e., potentially unknown  human trafficking victims). Then they plan to compare this number to the  known human trafficking victims to see if this approach identifies  additional victims. Abt is currently in the first year of a 3-year plan.
The Abt researcher noted that to accurately measure the prevalence of  human trafficking in Indian country using a similar methodology, a study  must oversample the Native American population. Based on the small  sampling size being used to test the current methodology, Abt told us the  current study can likely report the number of Native Americans and the  number of human trafficking victims on its test sites, but would not be able  to generalize results from this study to the entire Native American  population.
Northeastern University’s research project, Capturing Human Trafficking  Victimization through Crime Reporting is a 3-year study to test a multiple  system list estimation methodology to estimate the prevalence of human  trafficking in three sites, which are expected to be selected by mid- October 2016. According to the program manager, this methodology  consists of comparing human trafficking reporting from the FBI’s Uniform  Crime Reporting System to the data systems of non-law enforcement  entities─ welfare, victim service providers, domestic violence shelter,  licensing and inspection agencies, among others. Any differences or  similarities across the data would help determine whether victims are  being captured in multiple areas (systems) and the results could be used  to develop prevalence estimates for the tests sites. According to the  program manager, if the methodology works in the test sites, the U.S.  government could replicate it to estimate prevalence nationally or at other  levels of government.
The coordinators of these research projects noted that there are major  obstacles that hinder the estimation of human trafficking in the United  States, including a lack of systematic information about the existence of  victims in areas where human trafficking activities are known to exist. Abt  and San Diego State University stated that even though their  methodologies are not specifically designed to assess prevalence of  human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of  location, their approaches could be modified to achieve that goal.  However, Abt noted that to correctly measure the prevalence of human  trafficking in Indian country, a study must oversample the Native  American population.
section_title: Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal Grant Programs that Could Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans
subsections: section_title: Grant Program
paragraphs: Awareness  Department of Health and Human Services  (8 Grant Programs)  (41 Grant programs)
section_title: Collaboration
section_title: Collaboration
section_title: Collaboration
section_title: Collaboration
section_title: Collaboration
paragraphs: (1 Grant Program)
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact name above, Kristy Love, Assistant Director;  Kisha Clark, Analyst-in-Charge; Jessica Ard; Paulissa Earl; Marycella  Mierez; Susan Hsu; Jon Najmi; Michele Fejfar; and David Blanding made  significant contributions to the work.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Human Trafficking: State Has Made Improvements in Its Annual Report  but Does Not Explicitly Explain Certain Tier Rankings or Changes.   GAO-17-56. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2016.
Human Trafficking: Implementation of Related Statutory Provisions, Law  Enforcement Efforts, and Grant Funding. GAO-16-748T. Washington,  D.C.: June 28, 2016.
Human Trafficking: Agencies Have Taken Steps to Assess Prevalence,  Address Victim Issues, and Avoid Grant Duplication. GAO-16-555.  Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2016.
Human Trafficking: Actions Taken to Implement Related Statutory  Provisions. GAO-16-528R. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2016.
Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in  High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened. GAO-15-102.  Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2014.
Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects  Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements. GAO-07-1034.  Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.
Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the  Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking  Crimes. GAO-07-915. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.
Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to  Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad. GAO-06-825.   Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2006.