Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad
Published: 2006-07-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which men, women, and children are bought, sold, and held against their will in involuntary servitude. In addition to the tremendous personal damage suffered by individual trafficking victims, this global crime has broad societal repercussions, such as fueling criminal networks and imposing public health costs. In 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to combat trafficking and reauthorized this act twice. This report reviews U.S. international antitrafficking efforts by examining (1) estimates of the extent of global trafficking, (2) the U.S. government's strategy for combating the problem abroad, and (3) the Department of State's process for evaluating foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. government estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are trafficked across international borders annually. However, such estimates of global human trafficking are questionable. The accuracy of the estimates is in doubt because of methodological weaknesses, gaps in data, and numerical discrepancies. For example, the U.S. government's estimate was developed by one person who did not document all his work, so the estimate may not be replicable, casting doubt on its reliability. Moreover, country data are not available, reliable, or comparable. There is also a considerable discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated victims of human trafficking. The U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of trafficking related data that resides within government entities. While federal agencies have undertaken antitrafficking activities, the U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy for combating trafficking abroad or developed a way to gauge results and target its overall assistance. The U.S. government has established coordination mechanisms, but they do not include a systematic way for agencies to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to each other, identify needs, or leverage activities to achieve greater results. Further, the U.S. government has not established performance measures or conducted evaluations to gauge the overall impact of antitrafficking programs abroad, thus preventing the U.S. government from determining the effectiveness of its efforts or adjusting its assistance to better meet needs. The Department of State assesses foreign governments' compliance with minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons; but the explanations for ranking decisions in its annual Trafficking in Persons Report are incomplete, and the report is not used consistently to develop antitrafficking programs. It has increased global awareness, encouraged government action, and raised the risk of sanctions against governments who did not make significant efforts to comply with the standards. However, State does not comprehensively describe compliance with the standards, lessening the report's credibility and usefulness as a diplomatic tool. Further, incomplete country narratives reduce the report's utility as a guide to help focus U.S. government resources on antitrafficking programming priorities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which men,  women, and children are bought, sold, and held against their will in  slave-like conditions. People are trafficked and forced to work in the  commercial sex trade, sweatshops, agricultural settings, domestic service,  and other types of servitude. In addition to the tremendous personal  damage suffered by individual trafficking victims, this global crime has  broad societal repercussions. It fuels criminal networks, imposes public  health costs, and erodes government authority. Since the mid-1990s, the  United States has played a leading role in putting human trafficking on the  international community’s agenda. In 2000, Congress enacted the  Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to combat trafficking in persons  and established the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and  Combat Trafficking in Persons (Interagency Task Force). Congress  reauthorized this Act—in the Trafficking Victims Protection  Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPA 2003) and the Trafficking Victims  Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPA 2005). This legislation  requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress annually on foreign  governments’ compliance with minimum U.S. standards for the elimination  of trafficking. Since 2001, the U.S. government has provided about $375  million in antitrafficking assistance to foreign governments and  nongovernmental organizations to help eliminate human trafficking.
This review is part of a larger body of work that you requested. To review  the status of U.S. international efforts to combat trafficking in persons, we  examined (1) estimates of the extent of global trafficking in persons, (2)  the U.S. government’s strategy for combating trafficking in persons abroad,  and (3) the Department of State’s (State) process for evaluating foreign  governments’ antitrafficking efforts.
To address these objectives, we reviewed pertinent State, Justice, Labor,  Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and U.S. Agency for  International Development planning, funding, and program documents for  international human trafficking. We discussed U.S. international trafficking  efforts with officials from these departments, along with knowledgeable  officials from international and nongovernmental organizations. We  conducted an extensive analysis of the global trafficking databases  developed and maintained by the U.S. government, the International  Organization for Migration, the International Labor Organization, and the  U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). We also analyzed the country  narratives in State’s 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report to determine how  it assesses compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of  trafficking, as laid out in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. We  conducted our review from September 2005 to May 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Human trafficking occurs worldwide and often involves transnational  criminal organizations, violations of labor and immigration codes, and  government corruption. Although their circumstances vary, fraud, force, or  coercion typically distinguishes trafficking victims from people who are  smuggled. Moreover, most trafficking cases follow the same pattern:  people are abducted or recruited in the country of origin, transferred  through transit regions, and then exploited in the destination country.  People may also be trafficked internally, that is, within the borders of their  own country. Trafficking victims include agricultural workers who are  brought into the United States, held in crowded unsanitary conditions,  threatened with violence if they attempt to leave, and kept under constant  surveillance; child camel jockeys in Dubai who are starved to keep their  weight down; Indonesian women who may be drawn to a domestic service  job in another country, are not paid for their work and are without the  resources to return home; child victims of commercial sexual exploitation  in Thailand; and child soldiers in Uganda.
During the 1990s, the U.S. government began drawing attention to the  problem of human trafficking before various international forums and  gatherings. In 1998, a presidential memorandum called on U.S.  government agencies to combat the problem through prevention of  trafficking, victim assistance and protection, and enforcement. This  approach came to be known as “the three p’s”—prevention, protection, and  prosecution.
In 2000, Congress enacted TVPA and reauthorized and amended the act  twice. The act defines victims of severe forms of trafficking as those  persons subject to (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 acts 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; it does not require the transportation of victims from one locale  to another. Under the TVPA, an alien, who is identified as a victim of a  severe form of trafficking in the United States and meets additional  conditions, is eligible for special benefits and services.
The TVPA, as amended, provides a framework for current U.S.  antitrafficking efforts. It addresses the prevention of trafficking, protection  and assistance for victims of trafficking, and the prosecution and  punishment of traffickers. The TVPA also laid out minimum standards for  eliminating trafficking to be used in the Secretary of State’s annual  assessment of foreign governments’ antitrafficking efforts. It authorized  U.S. foreign assistance for efforts designed to meet these standards and  established sanctions—withholding nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related  assistance—that could be applied against governments of countries not in  compliance with the standards and not making significant efforts to bring  themselves into compliance.
Responsibility for implementing U.S. government antitrafficking efforts  domestically and abroad is shared by the Departments of State, Justice,  Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and  the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Each agency  addresses one or more of the three prongs of the U.S. antitrafficking  approach. Some agencies have more responsibility for implementing  international trafficking efforts than others. Figure 1 shows agencies and  task forces with responsibilities for antitrafficking efforts.
The government has also created several coordinating mechanisms for  these antitrafficking efforts, as shown in figure 1. The TVPA directed the  President to establish the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat  Trafficking in Persons, comprised of various agency heads and chaired by  the Secretary of State, to coordinate the implementation of the act, among  other activities. Furthermore, the TVPA authorized the Secretary of State to  create the Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking  in Persons (Trafficking Office) to provide assistance to the task force.  Subsequently, TVPA 2003 established the Senior Policy Operating Group,  which addresses interagency policy, program, and planning issues  regarding TVPA implementation. The TVPA 2003 directed the Director of  the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to serve as chair  of the group. In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention  Act of 2004, passed in December 2004, established the Human Smuggling  and Trafficking Center to be jointly run by the Departments of State,  Justice and DHS. This center houses several agency data systems to collect  and disseminate information to build a comprehensive picture of certain  transnational issues, including, among other things, human trafficking.
Since 2001, the U.S. government has obligated approximately $375 million  for international projects to combat trafficking in persons. For example, in  fiscal year 2005, the U.S. government supported more than 265  international antitrafficking programs in about 100 countries. State, Labor,  and USAID are the three largest providers of international assistance to  target trafficking (see table 1).
During an address to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2003, the  President declared trafficking in persons a humanitarian crisis and  announced that the U.S. government was committing $50 million to support  organizations active in combating sex trafficking, sex tourism, and the  rescue of women and children. In 2004, eight priority countries for the  initiative were identified—Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Mexico,  Moldova, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania. The initiative was centered on  developing the capacity of each country to rescue women and children, to  provide emergency shelters, medical treatment, rehabilitation services, vocational training, and reintegration services, and to conduct law  enforcement investigations and prosecutions.
section_title: Estimates of Global Human Trafficking Are Questionable, and U.S. Data Collection Efforts Are Fragmented
paragraphs: Existing estimates of the scale of trafficking at the global level are  questionable, and improvements in data collection have not yet been  implemented. The accuracy of the estimates is in doubt because of  methodological weaknesses, gaps in data and numerical discrepancies. For  example, the U.S. government’s estimate was developed by one person who  did not document all of his work, so the estimate may not be replicable,  casting doubt on its reliability. Moreover, country data are generally not  available, reliable or comparable. There is also a considerable discrepancy  between the numbers of observed and estimated victims of human  trafficking. The U.S. government has not yet established an effective  mechanism for estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing  analysis of trafficking related data that resides within various government  agencies. While trafficking data collection in the United States is  fragmented, the database created by the International Organization for  Migration (IOM) provides a useful systematic profile of victims and  traffickers across countries.
subsections: section_title: Accuracy of Estimates in Doubt Because of Methodological Weaknesses, Gaps in Data, and Numerical Discrepancies
paragraphs: The U.S. government and three international organizations gather data on  human trafficking, but methodological weaknesses affect the accuracy of  their information. Efforts to develop accurate trafficking estimates are  further frustrated by the lack of country level data. Finally, there is a  considerable discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated  victims of human trafficking.
subsections: section_title: Methodological Weaknesses Cast Doubt on U.S. and International Estimates
paragraphs: The U.S. government and three international organizations have gathered  data on global human trafficking. However, these organizations face  methodological weaknesses and institutional constraints that cast doubt on  the accuracy of the collected data.
The four organizations with databases on global trafficking in persons are  the U.S. government, International Labor Organization (ILO), IOM, and   UNODC. The U.S. government and ILO estimate the number of victims  worldwide, IOM collects data on victims it assists in the countries where it  has a presence, and UNODC traces the major international trafficking  routes of the victims. The databases provide information on different  aspects of human trafficking since each organization analyzes the problem  based on its own mandate. For example, IOM looks at trafficking from a  migration and rights point of view and ILO from the point of view of  forced labor.
Despite the fact that the databases use different methodologies for data  collection and analysis and have various limitations, some common themes  emerge. For example, the largest percentage of estimated victims is  trafficked for sexual exploitation. In addition, women constitute the  majority of estimated victims. However, the estimated percentage of  victims that are children ranges from 13 to 50 percent. Table 2 describes the  victim profiles that emerge from the data.
Methodological weaknesses and limitations cast doubt on the U.S. estimate  of global trafficking flows. We identified several important limitations:  Estimate not entirely replicable. The U.S. government agency that  prepares the trafficking estimate is part of the intelligence community,  which makes its estimation methodology opaque and inaccessible.  During a trafficking workshop in November 2005, the government  agency provided a one-page overview of its methodology, which allowed  for only a very limited peer review by the workshop participants. In  addition, the U.S. government’s methodology involves interpreting,  classifying, and analyzing data, which was performed by one person  who did not document all of his work. Thus the estimate may not be  replicable, which raises doubts about its reliability.
Estimate based on unreliable estimates of others. The biggest  methodological challenge in calculating an accurate number of global  trafficking victims is how to transition from reported to unreported  victims. The U.S. government does not directly estimate the number of  unreported victims but relies on the estimates of others, adjusting them  through a complex statistical process. It essentially averages the various  aggregate estimates of reported and unreported trafficking victims  published by NGOs, governments, and international organizations,  estimates that themselves are not reliable or comparable due to  different definitions, methodologies, data sources, and data validation  procedures. Moreover, the methodologies used to develop these  estimates are generally not published and available for professional  scrutiny.
Internal trafficking data not included. The U.S. government does not  collect data on internal trafficking, which could be a significant problem  in countries such as India, where forced labor is reportedly widespread.  According to the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report, many nations may  be overlooking internal trafficking or forms of labor trafficking in their  national legislations. In particular, what is often absent is involuntary  servitude, a form of severe trafficking. The report also noted that the  TVPA specifically includes involuntary servitude in the U.S. definition of  severe forms of trafficking. Nonetheless, the U.S. government estimate  does not account for it, because it only collects data on offenses that  cross national borders.
Estimate not suitable for analysis over time. The U.S. government  methodology provides an estimate of trafficking flows for a 1-year  period and cannot be used to analyze trafficking over time to determine  whether it is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Therefore, the  estimate cannot help in targeting resources and evaluating program  effectiveness.
section_title: International Data
paragraphs: Methodological weaknesses also raise questions about the accuracy of  trafficking information from international organizations. For example,  UNODC’s methodology attempts to identify global trafficking flows across  international borders. It tracks and totals the number of different source  institutions that have reported a country having a trafficking incident.  However, whether the trafficking incident involved 5 or 500 victims is  irrelevant for UNODC’s methodology. In addition, by classifying countries  in five categories based on the frequency of reporting, UNODC might rank  a country very high as, say, a destination country, due to the country’s  heightened public awareness, transparency and recognition of trafficking  as a serious crime. Alternatively, ILO’s methodology provides a global  estimate of trafficking victims. However, it attempts to overcome the gap  between reported and unreported victims using an extrapolation that is  based on assumptions and observations that have not been rigorously  tested and validated. Moreover, global databases are based on data sources  drawn from reports from a limited number of countries or restricted  geographically to specific countries. For example, IOM’s data only come  from countries where IOM has a presence, which are primarily countries of  origin, and the organization is constrained by issues related to the  confidentiality of victim assistance.  Finally, although the three  organizations are trying to collaborate in the area of data collection and  research, they are having difficulty in mobilizing the necessary resources  for their efforts. Therefore, this fragmentary approach prevents the  development of a comprehensive and accurate view of global trafficking.  (See app. II for additional information about the different methodologies,  analytical assumptions, data validation, and data sources used by the  international organizations and the U.S. government.)
section_title: Reliable and Comparable Country Data Do Not Exist
paragraphs: The quality of existing country level data varies due to limited availability,  reliability, and comparability. Table 3 summarizes the main limitations of  trafficking data, identified in our review of literature on human trafficking.
The availability of data is limited by several factors. Trafficking victims are  a hidden population because trafficking is a clandestine activity, similar to  illegal migration and labor exploitation. This limits the amount of data  available on victims and makes it difficult to estimate the number of  unreported victims. Trafficking victims are often in a precarious position  and may be unwilling or unable to report to, or seek help from, relevant  authorities. Moreover, HHS reported that victims live daily with inhumane  treatment, physical and mental abuse, and threats to themselves or their  families back home. Victims of human trafficking may fear or 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. In such circumstances, reporting to the police or seeking help  elsewhere requires courage and knowledge of local conditions, which the  victims simply might not have.
In addition, some governments give low priority to human trafficking  violations and do not systematically collect data on victims. In most  countries where trafficking data are gathered, women and children are  seen as victims of trafficking, and men are predominantly seen as migrant  workers, reflecting a gender bias in existing information. Men are also  perceived as victims of labor exploitation that may not be seen as a crime  but rather as an issue for trade unions and labor regulators. Thus, data  collection and applied research often miss the broader dimensions of  trafficking for labor exploitation. For example, the demand for cheap labor,  domestic service, slavery, and child labor have not been sufficiently  investigated as factors affecting the scale of human trafficking.
The reliability of existing data is also questionable. In developing countries,  which are usually countries of origin, capacity for data collection and  analysis is often inadequate. In countries of destination, human trafficking  convictions are often based on victim testimony. Moreover, estimates of  trafficking are extrapolated from samples of reported cases, which are not  random. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how representative those  cases are of the general population of all human trafficking victims and  what biases have been introduced.
Data quality is further constrained by limited data comparability. Countries  and organizations define trafficking differently. A practice that is  considered trafficking in one country may be considered culturally and  historically acceptable in another country. For example, in West African  countries, people, in particular children, commonly move within and  across borders in search of work and are placed in homes as domestic  servants or on farms and plantations as laborers. Due to economic  deprivation and an abundant supply of children from poor families, a child  may be sold by his or her parents based on promises for job training and  good education or may be placed with a creditor as reimbursement.
The incompatibility of definitions for data collection is exacerbated by the  intermingling of trafficking, smuggling, and illegal migration in official  statistics. Countries have used different definitions regarding the scope and  means of trafficking; the activities involved, such as recruitment,  harboring, transportation and receipt of victims; the purpose; the need for  movement across borders; and the consent of victims. For example, there  are discrepancies in the collection of data on sex trafficking. Under the  TVPA, participation of children under the age of 18 in commercial sex is a  severe form of trafficking. However, some countries define children as  people under the age of 16 and, according to U.S. government officials, this  difference has implications for how countries collect data on children  engaged in commercial sex.
Finally, data are often program and institution specific and focus on the  needs of individual agencies. Estimates may be developed for the purpose  of advocacy. For example, some NGOs record all victims based on the first  contact made with them regardless of whether they subsequently meet the  criteria for receiving assistance such as legal counsel, shelter, financial  support, or support during a trial, while others record only those who  receive assistance. Data are also collected for operational purposes within  criminal justice systems, and individual authorities use their own  definitions and classifications.
section_title: Significant Difference Exists between Numbers of Estimated and Observed Victims
paragraphs: There is significant discrepancy between the number of estimated victims  and the number of observed victims, which include officially reported,  certified, registered and assisted victims. For example, the U.S.  government estimated that the number of people trafficked into the United  States ranged from 14,500 to 17,500 in 2003. Despite concerted U.S.  government efforts to locate and protect victims, the government certified  fewer than 900 victims in the United States during the 4 ½ years between  March 2001 and September 2005. The June 2006 Attorney General's  Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat  Trafficking in Persons for Fiscal Year 2005 indicates that the 14,500 to  17,500 figure may be overstated because it was an early attempt to quantify  a hidden problem. The number of certified victims may not reflect the total  number of victims identified. For example, some alien victims need not  seek certification because they can remain in the United States through  family connections. The Justice Department indicates that further research  is under way to determine a more accurate figure based on more advanced  methodologies and a more complete understanding of the nature of  trafficking. Similarly, the U.S. government estimated that a total of 600,000  to 800,000 people were trafficked across transnational borders worldwide  annually. Yet, since 1999, fewer than 8,000 victims in 26 countries have  received IOM assistance.
Organizations may also publish estimates that incorrectly characterize the  data reported by others. For example, in a 2001 report a Cambodian  nongovernmental organization states that there were 80,000 to 100,000  trafficked women and children nationwide. However, this statement is  based on a report which discusses 80,000 to 100,000 sex workers in the  country, who may or may not be trafficking victims. Moreover, the latter  report uses two other sources that did not corroborate this estimate.
Several factors could explain the differences between the numbers of  observed and estimated victims, but it is unclear the extent to which any  single factor accounts for the differences. For example, the 2005  Trafficking in Persons Report cited cases in which victims reported by law  enforcement were deported before they reached an assistance agency. In  addition, agencies may not make sufficient efforts in identifying and  helping victims or may have constraints imposed by certain assistance  requirements. Victims assisted by IOM missions are those willing to go  back to their country of origin. However, if there are other opportunities  available in the country of destination, such as receiving a residence  permit, victims may not be willing to accept IOM assistance. In the United  States, one requirement of receiving official certification is that victims of  human trafficking must be willing to assist with the investigation and  prosecution of trafficking cases. According to an HHS official, this  requirement may work to limit the number of recorded victims. Given the  weaknesses in data and methods, it also cannot be dismissed that the  estimates may overstate the magnitude of human trafficking.
section_title: Trafficking Data Collection in the United States Is Fragmented While IOM’s Is Systematic
paragraphs: The U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for  estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of  trafficking related data that resides within various government agencies.  The TVPA 2005, passed in January 2006, called on the President, through  various agencies, to conduct research into the development of an effective  mechanism for quantifying the number of victims of trafficking on a  national, regional, and international basis. Since 2005, the U.S. government  has funded a project to develop a transparent methodology for estimating  the number of men, women, and children trafficked into the United States  for purposes of sex or labor trafficking. To date, the modeling has been  limited to 10 countries of origin—Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, El  Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba—and one arrival  point in the United States—the southwest border. The firm developing this  methodology is in the early stages of this effort and plans to continue to  refine and test its methodology. Thus, it is too early to assess this  methodology. The U.S. government also recently funded an outside  contractor to improve future global trafficking estimates. To date, the U.S.  government has funded few projects to improve estimates of trafficking on  a regional or international basis.
In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004  established the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to serve, among  other responsibilities, as a clearinghouse for all relevant information and to  convert it into tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence to combat  trafficking in persons. The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center  collects trafficking information from U.S government agencies and sends  this information to other agencies that have an interest in it for law  enforcement purposes. Center officials stated that they receive and collate  trafficking information from federal government agencies. However,  officials stated that they do not systematically analyze the trafficking  information they receive and lack the human and financial resources to do  so. In addition, we identified eight entities within the federal government  that possess some information related to domestic and international  trafficking. The Justice Department alone has four different offices that  possess domestic trafficking information. None of the federal agencies  systematically shares their international data with the others, and no  agency analyzes the existing data to help inform international program and  resource allocation decisions. (See app. III for information on the type of  trafficking data available within agencies.)
Furthermore, based upon our analysis of agency data sets, we found that  federal agencies do not have data collection programs that could share  information or include common data fields. As a result, it is difficult to use  existing agency trafficking data to compile a profile of trafficking victims.  In previous work, we have reported that it is good practice for agencies to  establish compatible policies, procedures, standards, and data systems to  enable them to operate across agency boundaries. Although some  information exists, agencies were unable to provide an account of the age,  gender, type of exploitation suffered, and origin and destination of  trafficking victims into the United States. Moreover, some agencies with  law enforcement missions were generally unwilling to share demographic  trafficking data with us and would release statistics for law enforcement  purposes only. The U.S. National Central Bureau was able to extract limited  profile information from its case management system.
While the information on trafficking victims collected by U.S. agencies is  fragmented, the database created by IOM allows for the development of a  useful, in-depth profile of traffickers and their victims across 26 countries.  Although IOM’s data are limited to countries where IOM provides direct  assistance to trafficking victims, has a short history of about 7 years, and  may not be easily generalizable, it is the only one of the four databases that  contains data directly obtained from victims. Drawing from more than  7,000 cases, it includes information about the victims’ socioeconomic  profile, movement, exploitation, abuse, and duration of trafficking.  Moreover, the database tracks victims from the time they first requested  IOM assistance, through their receipt of assistance, to their subsequent  return home. Importantly, it also tracks whether victims were subsequently  retrafficked. These factors provide information that could assist U.S.  efforts to compile better data on trafficking victims.
As shown in figure 2, the victims IOM assisted often were enticed by  traffickers’ promise of a job, most believed they would be working in  various legitimate professions, and were subjected to physical violence.
In addition, based on cases with available data on the duration of the  trafficking episode, the average duration of stay in the destination country  before seeking help from IOM is more than 2 years.  Most of the sexual  exploitation victims worked 7 days a week and retained a small fraction of  their earnings. Moreover, about 54 percent of the victims paid a debt to the  recruiter, transporter and/or other exploiters, and about 52 percent knew  they were sold to other traffickers at some stage of the trafficking process.
The database also contains information about the recruiters’ and  traffickers’ networks, nationality, and relationship to victims. It thus  provides insights into the traffickers and the mechanisms traffickers used  to identify and manipulate their victims. For example, in 77 percent of the  cases, contact with the recruiter was initiated based on a personal  relationship. Moreover, the correlation between the nationality of the  recruiter and that of the victim was very high (0.92). Trafficking networks  may have a complex organization, with the recruiter being only one part of  the whole system. The organization may involve investors, transporters,  corrupt public officials, informers, guides, debt collectors, and money  launderers. The extent of information on victims and traffickers in the  database improves the overall understanding of the broader dimensions of  trafficking.
section_title: Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures Prevents U.S. Government from Determining Overall Program Effectiveness Abroad
paragraphs: While federal agencies have undertaken activities to combat trafficking in  persons, the U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy to  combat human trafficking abroad, as called for in a presidential directive.  The U.S. government has established an interagency task force and  working group on human trafficking, which have focused on complying  with U.S. policy on prostitution and avoiding duplication of effort, but they  have not focused on developing and implementing a systematic way for  agencies to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to each  other, and identify targets of greatest need and leverage overseas activities  to achieve greater results. In addition, governmentwide task forces have  not developed measurable goals and associated indicators to evaluate the  overall effectiveness of efforts to combat trafficking abroad or outlined an  evaluation plan to gauge results, making the U.S. government unable to  determine the effectiveness of its efforts abroad or to adjust its assistance  to better meet needs.
subsections: section_title: The U.S. Government Does Not Have a Plan to Evaluate Its Overall Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad
paragraphs: Despite the mandate to evaluate progress, the Interagency Task Force has  not developed a plan to evaluate overall U.S. government efforts to combat  trafficking abroad. In TVPA 2000, Congress called upon the Interagency  Task Force to measure and evaluate the progress of the United States and  other countries in preventing trafficking, protecting and providing  assistance to victims, and prosecuting traffickers. However, the Task Force  has not developed an evaluation plan or established governmentwide  performance measures against which the U.S. government can evaluate the  overall impact of its international antitrafficking efforts. In previous work,  we have reported that monitoring and evaluating efforts can help key  decision makers within agencies, as well as clients and stakeholders,  identify areas for improvement. Further, in its 2005 annual assessment of  U.S. government activities to combat human trafficking, the Department of  Justice recommended that the U.S. government begin measuring the  impact of its antitrafficking activities. Although the project-level  documentation that we reviewed from agencies, such as USAID and the  Department of Labor, included measures to track activities on specific  projects, officials stated that USAID’s agency-level aggregate indicators are  intended as a way of communicating agency outputs, not as a means of  evaluating the effectiveness of programs. In addition, according to the 2005  State Department Inspector General report, State’s Trafficking Office needs  to better identify relevant, objective, and clear performance indicators to  compare progress in combating trafficking from year to year.  Officials  from State’s Trafficking Office recognized the need to establish  mechanisms to evaluate grant effectiveness. However, officials stated that  the office lacks the personnel to monitor and evaluate programs in the field  and that it relies on U.S. embassy personnel to assist in project monitoring.   In early 2006, the Trafficking Office adopted a monitoring and evaluation  tool to assist embassy personnel in monitoring its antitrafficking programs,  but it is too soon to assess its impact.
Our review of the Department of State documentation and discussions with  agency officials found little evidence of the impact of various  antitrafficking efforts. For example, the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report  asserts that legalized or tolerated prostitution nearly always increases the  number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery, but  does not cite any supporting evidence. However, apart from a 2005  European Parliament sponsored study on the link between national  legislation on prostitution and the trafficking of women and children, we  found few studies that comprehensively addressed this issue. In addition,  the State Inspector General report noted that some embassies and  academics questioned the credentials of the organizations and findings of  the research that the Trafficking Office funded. The Inspector General  recommended that the Trafficking Office submit research proposals and  reports to a rigorous peer review to improve oversight of research efforts.  In addition, according to agency officials in Washington, D.C. and in the  field, there is little or no evidence to indicate the extent to which different  types of efforts—such as prosecuting traffickers, abolishing prostitution,  increasing viable economic opportunities, or sheltering and reintegrating  victims—impact the level of trafficking or the extent to which rescued  victims are being retrafficked.
section_title: Department of State’s Annual Report Ranks Foreign Governments’ Antitrafficking Efforts but Has Limited Credibility and Does Not Consistently Influence Antitrafficking Programs
paragraphs: As required by the TVPA, the Department of State issues an annual report  that analyzes and ranks foreign governments’ compliance with minimum  standards to eliminate trafficking in persons. This report has increased  global awareness about trafficking in persons, encouraged action by some  governments who failed to comply with the minimum standards, and raised  the threat of sanctions against governments who did not make significant  efforts to comply with these standards. The Department of State includes  explanations of the rankings in the report, though they are not required  under the TVPA. However, the report’s explanations for these ranking  decisions are incomplete, and agencies do not consistently use the report  to influence antitrafficking programs. Information about whether a country  has a significant number of trafficking victims may be unavailable or  unreliable, making the justification for some countries’ inclusion in the  report debatable. Moreover, in justifying the tier rankings for these  countries, State does not comprehensively describe foreign governments’  compliance with the standards, many of which are subjective. This lessens  the report’s credibility and hampers its usefulness as a diplomatic tool. In  addition, incomplete country narratives reduce the report’s utility as a  guide to help focus U.S. government resources on antitrafficking  programming priorities.
subsections: section_title: Department of State’s Annual Report Assesses Foreign Governments’ Efforts to Eliminate Trafficking
paragraphs: Each year since 2001, State has published the congressionally mandated  Trafficking in Persons Report, ranking countries into a category, or tier,  based on the Secretary of State’s assessment of foreign governments’  compliance with four minimum standards for eliminating human  trafficking, as established in the TVPA. These standards reflect the U.S.  government’s antitrafficking strategy of prosecuting traffickers, protecting  victims, and preventing trafficking. The first three standards deal with  countries’ efforts to prohibit severe forms of trafficking and prescribe  penalties for trafficking crimes, while the fourth standard relates to  government efforts to eliminate trafficking. The TVPA instructed the  Secretary of State to place countries that are origin, transit, or destination  countries for a significant number of victims of severe forms of trafficking  in one of three tiers. In 2003, State added a fourth category, the tier 2 watch  list, consisting of tier 2 countries that require special scrutiny in the coming  year (see fig. 3). Governments of countries placed in tier 3 may be subject  to sanctions by the United States.
In addition to the rankings, each Trafficking in Persons Report contains  country narratives intended to provide the basis for each country’s tier  placement. Although the narratives are not required by the TVPA, they state  the scope and nature of the trafficking problem, explain the reasons for the  country’s inclusion in the report, and describe the government’s efforts to  combat trafficking and comply with the minimum standards contained in  U.S. legislation. For countries placed in the lowest two tiers, State develops  country action plans to help guide governments in improving their  antitrafficking efforts.
section_title: Trafficking in Persons Report Has Raised Global Awareness about Human Trafficking
paragraphs: The Trafficking in Persons Report has raised global awareness about  human trafficking and spurred some governments that had failed to comply  with the minimum standards to adopt antitrafficking measures. According  to U.S. government and international organization officials and  representatives of trafficking victim advocacy groups, this is due to the  combination of a public assessment of foreign governments’ antitrafficking  efforts and potential economic consequences for those that fail to meet  minimum standards and do not make an effort to do so.
U.S. government officials cited a number of cases in which foreign  governments improved their antitrafficking efforts in response to their tier  placements. For example, State and USAID officials cited the case of  Jamaica, a source country for child trafficking into the sex trade, which  was placed on tier 3 in the 2005 report. The country narrative noted  deficiencies in Jamaica’s antitrafficking measures and reported that the  government was not making significant efforts to comply with the  minimum standards. Jamaica failed to investigate, prosecute, or convict  any traffickers during the previous year, despite the passage of a law to  protect minors. In response, the Jamaican government created an  antitrafficking unit within its police force and conducted raids that led to  nine trafficking-related arrests.
In addition, the 2004 report placed Japan on the tier 2 watch list, and the  country narrative noted that Japan is a destination country for large  numbers of foreign women and children who are trafficked for sexual  exploitation. It highlighted weaknesses in Japan’s law enforcement efforts.  For example, the lack of scrutiny of Japan’s entertainer visas reportedly  allowed traffickers to use them to bring victims into the country. The  country narrative also mentioned Japan’s failure to comply with minimum  standards for protecting victims, deporting foreign trafficking victims as  undocumented aliens who had committed a crime by entering the country  illegally. According to State officials and the 2005 report, the Japanese  government responded to the report’s criticisms by tightening the issuance  of entertainer visas and ceasing the criminal treatment of trafficking  victims.
Governments of countries placed on tier 3 that do not implement the  recommendations in the country action plan may be subject to sanctions or  other penalties. The United States, for example, may oppose assistance for  the country from international financial institutions such as the  International Monetary Fund. Since 2003, full or partial sanctions have  been applied to eight countries, most of which were already under  sanctions from the United States.
section_title: Limitations in the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report Affect Its Credibility as a Diplomatic Tool
paragraphs: According to the presidential directive and the 2005 Trafficking in  Persons Report, the annual report is intended as a tool to help the United  States engage foreign governments in fighting human trafficking.  According to U.S. government officials, the report’s effectiveness as a  diplomatic tool for discussing human trafficking with foreign governments  depends on its credibility. The country narratives used as the basis for  ranking decisions should provide clear and comprehensive assessments of  foreign governments’ antitrafficking efforts and demonstrate consistent  application of the standards. Our analysis of the 2005 report found  limitations in the country narratives, and State officials in the Regional  Bureaus expressed concerns that these limitations detract from the report’s  credibility and usefulness. These include some countries’ inclusion in the  report based on unreliable data, incomplete explanations of compliance  with the minimum standards by some of the highest-ranked countries, and  country narratives that did not clearly indicate how governments complied  with certain standards and criteria. We also found criticisms of the process  for resolving disputes about country inclusion and tier rankings.
subsections: section_title: Some Countries’ Inclusion in the Report Based on Unreliable Data
paragraphs: The TVPA requires State to rank the antitrafficking efforts of governments  of countries that are sources, transit points, or destinations for a  “significant number” of victims of severe forms of trafficking. Since 2001,  State has used a threshold of 100 victims to determine whether or not to  include a country in the Trafficking in Persons Report. However, as  discussed earlier in this report, reliable estimates of the number of  trafficking victims are generally not available. For example, according to  State officials, one country was included in the report because a junior  political officer stated that at least 300 trafficking victims were in the  country and that the government’s efforts to combat trafficking should be  assessed. According to these officials, this statement was based on the  political officer’s informal survey of brothels in that country. Since then,  other embassy officials, including the ambassador, have argued that the  country does not have a significant number of victims, but it continues to  appear in the report. In addition, State officials cited Estonia as a country  that was included in the report based on an IOM official’s informal estimate  of more than 100 victims. State officials said that a subsequent  embassy-funded study of trafficking in Estonia found that the country had  around 100 confirmed victims in a 4-year period, but internal discussions  have not led to the removal of Estonia from the Trafficking in Persons  Report. However, the country narrative for Estonia in the 2005 report was  modified from previous years to state that Estonia is a source and transit  country for a “small number” of trafficking victims.
Our review of country narratives in the 2005 report revealed some cases in  which it was not clear how the situations used to justify the country’s  inclusion in the report constituted severe forms of trafficking under U.S.  law. For example, the country narratives for Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and  Singapore described cases in which human smugglers abandoned people,  domestic workers were abused by their employers, and foreign women  engaged in prostitution. The narratives either did not clearly establish  whether the situation involved victims of severe forms of trafficking or  failed to provide enough information about the magnitude of the problem  to convey the sense that the number of victims had reached 100 people.  According to State officials, inclusion of human rights abuses or labor  issues in the description of foreign countries’ human trafficking problem  can damage the report’s credibility with foreign governments. Some State  officials have suggested abandoning the threshold of 100 victims and  including all countries in the report.
section_title: Unclear Threshold for Meeting Standard on Prescribed Punishment
paragraphs: Our analysis of the 2005 report found that many narratives did not clearly  state whether and how the government met the minimum standard  regarding stringency of punishment for severe forms of trafficking (see  app. I for a description of the methodology used to analyze the 2005  report). This standard requires that prescribed penalties for severe forms  of trafficking be sufficiently stringent to deter such trafficking and that they  reflect the heinous nature of the offense. The Trafficking Office has not  defined a threshold for what constitutes “sufficiently stringent”  punishment. Our analysis showed that in over one-third of cases, the 2005  report’s country narratives did not characterize the prescribed penalties as  sufficiently stringent. Moreover, in many cases the narratives do not state  whether or not the government met this minimum standard. State officials  agreed that this subjectivity makes it difficult for reports staff and foreign  governments to know what constitutes compliance, negatively affecting  the report’s credibility and utility as a diplomatic tool.
section_title: Narratives for Highest-Ranked Countries Did Not Fully Explain Their Placement
paragraphs: Our analysis of the 2005 report found that many country narratives do not  provide a comprehensive assessment of foreign governments’ compliance  with the minimum standards, resulting in incomplete explanations for tier  placements. Although the 2005 report discusses the importance of  imposing strict penalties on traffickers, we found that only 2 of the 24 tier 1  country narratives clearly explained compliance with the second minimum  standard established in the TVPA, which, among other things, calls for  governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking that is  commensurate with that for grave crimes such as forcible sexual assault.  The narratives for 17 (71 percent) of the tier 1 countries provided  information on penalties for sex trafficking but did not compare these with  the governments’ penalties for other grave crimes. Five (21 percent) tier 1  countries did not mention whether the governments complied with this  standard at all.
Our analysis of the tier 1 country narratives in the 2005 report also showed  that, while most explained how these governments fully met the core  criteria for the fourth minimum standard, related to government efforts to  eliminate severe forms of trafficking, some did not. A senior official at the  Trafficking Office confirmed this finding. We found that country narratives  for 11 (46 percent) of the 24 tier 1 countries raised concerns about the  governments’ compliance with key parts of core criteria used to determine  if the government is making a serious and sustained effort to eliminate  severe forms of trafficking. However, the narratives failed to explain  whether and how the governments’ success in meeting the other core  criteria outweighed these deficiencies and justified their placement in tier  1.
For example, the 2005 report described France, a tier 1 country, as a  destination for thousands of trafficked women and children. Although the  report states that the French government fully complied with the minimum  standards, our analysis of the narrative found that the first three standards  were not mentioned. Furthermore, the narrative also discussed the French  government’s failure to comply with the criterion on protecting trafficking  victims, one of the key objectives of U.S. antitrafficking legislation. The  narrative discusses a French law, which harmed trafficking victims by  arresting, jailing, and fining them. Senior officials at the Trafficking Office  are concerned about France’s lack of compliance with the victim  protection criterion. The narrative, however, did not balance the discussion  of these deficiencies by explaining how the government’s compliance with  the other core criteria allowed it to meet the fourth minimum standard and  thus be placed in tier 1.
Similarly, the country narratives for two tier 1 countries stated that the  governments were not taking steps to combat official corruption, which the  2004 report highlights as a major impediment to antitrafficking efforts. For  example, the narrative for Nepal, a source country for women and children  trafficked to India and the Middle East, states that the government fully  complied with the minimum standards. However, the narrative noted that  the government has not taken action against immigration officials, police  and judges suspected of benefiting from trafficking-related graft and  corruption, and it did not explain how the deficiency in this core criteria  was outweighed by Nepal’s efforts with other core criteria.
section_title: Internal Process for Resolving Disagreements Lacks Credibility
paragraphs: According to State officials, there are a considerable number of  disagreements within State about the initial tier placements proposed by  the Trafficking Office. These disagreements are not surprising, given that  the Trafficking Office focuses exclusively on antitrafficking efforts while  the Regional Bureaus manage bilateral relations, which comprise a wide  range of issues. However, it is important that the process for resolving  these conflicts be credible. Some disagreements on tier rankings are  resolved in meetings between the Trafficking Office and the Deputy  Assistant Secretaries of the Regional Bureaus, but most are elevated to the  undersecretary level. A few disagreements are even referred to the  Secretary of State for resolution. According to State officials, some  disputes are worked out by clarifying misunderstandings or providing  additional information. Although Trafficking Office staff said that these  discussions are constructive, staff in State’s Regional Bureaus said that  many disagreements over tier rankings are resolved by a process of  “horsetrading,” whereby the Trafficking Office agrees to raise some  countries’ tier rankings in exchange for lowering others. In these cases,  political considerations may take precedence over a neutral assessment of  foreign governments’ compliance with minimum standards to combat  trafficking. Senior officials at the Trafficking Office acknowledged that  political considerations sometimes come into play when making the tier  ranking decisions.
section_title: Trafficking in Persons Report Is Not Used to Prioritize Programs or Target Resources
paragraphs: The Trafficking Office’s implementation plan and the 2005 Trafficking in  Persons Report states that the report should be used as a guide to target  resources to prosecution, protection, and prevention programs. However,  we found that U.S. government agencies do not systematically link the  programs they fund to combat trafficking overseas with the tier rankings or  the deficiencies that are identified in the report’s country narratives. For  example, U.S. agencies did not use the report when they selected  high-priority countries to participate in the 2-year $50 million Presidential  Initiative to Combat Trafficking in Persons. Moreover, we found that  many of the country narratives describing deficiencies in foreign  governments’ antitrafficking efforts were incomplete, making it difficult to  use them to guide programming.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Government Lacks Mechanism to Link Its Overseas Programs to Deficiencies Identified In Trafficking in Persons Report
paragraphs: Officials from State’s Trafficking Office acknowledged that the  management processes and staff responsible for producing the report are  not linked with those managing overseas assistance programs. State’s  Inspector General reported in November 2005 that the lack of  synchronization between the Trafficking Office’s grants cycle (January and  February) and reporting cycle (June) makes it difficult to address the  shortcomings identified in the report and the countries’ programming  needs. In addition, most of the State requests for grant proposals that we  reviewed were generic in scope and were not tailored to address a specific  problem or priority. For example, one request for proposal was directed  broadly at prevention and protection programs in Africa, the Caribbean,  and Latin America. In addition, officials from State’s regional bureaus said  that most of their requests for grant proposals are sent to all the embassies  in their region and are not targeted to those countries on lower tiers.  However, officials from one regional bureau stated that they sent a request  for grant proposals dealing with law enforcement issues only to those  countries on the tier 2 watch list to ensure the programs were targeted  where they were most needed.
The presidential directive stated that agencies are to develop a consensus  on the highest priority countries to receive antitrafficking assistance  through interagency consultation and in consultation with U.S. missions  overseas. The Trafficking Office’s implementation plan called for using the  annual Trafficking in Persons Report as a guide to target assistance, with  priority to countries ranked in the lowest tiers and assistance to only those  tier 1 and 2 countries with limited resources and whose governments  showed a clear commitment to combat trafficking. In fiscal year 2005, the  U.S. government obligated about $96 million to support more than 265  international antitrafficking programs in about 100 countries. Only  one-fourth of this money went to countries ranked in the lowest two tiers  (see fig. 4).
Through the Senior Policy Operating Group, in January 2004 agencies  selected eight countries to target their efforts for the presidential initiative  to combat trafficking in persons; however, documentation of the  decision-making process does not mention use of the Trafficking in  Persons Report’s tier rankings or country narratives to affect this selection.  Officials from the Trafficking Office and the documents we reviewed stated  that the Group selected countries based on several factors, including  anticipated host government commitment and the ability to start  implementation in a short time frame. The eight countries selected were  ranked in tier 2 in the 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report, suggesting that  their governments showed some commitment to combating trafficking by  making efforts to comply with the minimum standards and criteria outlined  in the TVPA. However, it was not clear how the Group applied the criteria  in selecting the countries. For example, host government commitment to  combat trafficking did not necessarily translate into a willingness to  receive U.S. assistance. The Department of State cables indicate that the  governments in Brazil and India did not support U.S. efforts to fund  antitrafficking programs under the presidential initiative. In addition,  despite an emphasis on selecting countries in which the United States  could start implementation in a short time frame, agreements necessary to  conduct law enforcement projects were not in place in Brazil and Mexico,  causing these initiatives to be delayed. Also, according to an agency official  and documents we reviewed, Tanzania was included because a senior  official had just traveled there and thought trafficking might be a problem.
section_title: Incomplete Assessments of Foreign Governments’ Antitrafficking Deficiencies
paragraphs: The country narratives’ incomplete assessments of deficiencies in foreign  governments’ efforts to combat trafficking diminish the Trafficking in  Persons Report’s utility as a programming guide. Our analysis of the 2005  report found that many country narratives failed to include information on  the governments’ compliance with some standards and core criteria,  making it difficult for U.S. government officials to use the report as a  programming guide. For example, all narratives for countries in the lowest  two tiers contained some discussion of government efforts to protect  trafficking victims. However, we found that 80 percent failed to mention  key aspects of the victim protection criterion, including whether victims  were encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement, whether the  government provided legal alternatives to deportation, and whether victims  were protected from inappropriate treatment as criminals (see fig. 5). In  addition, 92 percent of country narratives for tier 2 countries, which  receive the largest share of U.S. government antitrafficking funds, did not  mention compliance with certain standards and criteria.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: The United States has placed trafficking on the international agenda and  has spurred governments and organizations into action through its funding  of international programs and the publication of the annual Trafficking in  Persons Report.  Additionally, the development of a victim-centered  approach based upon prevention, protection, and prosecution programs  has provided an operational framework for both governments and  practitioners in the field. However, more than 5 years since the passage of  the TVPA, the U.S. government lacks fundamental information on the  nature and extent of the global trafficking problem and an overall strategy  for agencies to target their programs and resources abroad.
As the United States and other countries work to identify victims of  trafficking, the scope of the global trafficking problem remains unknown in  terms of overall numbers within countries of origin; victims’ gender, age,  and type of exploitation suffered; and the profile and methods of the  perpetrators. The United States has provided about $375 million in  antitrafficking assistance since 2001 for projects in about 100 countries.  However, the lack of an overall government strategy which ties together  and leverages the program expertise and resources of agencies with the  knowledge of victims’ identity and location, raises questions about whether  antitrafficking activities are targeted where they are most needed.  Furthermore, little evaluation research has been conducted to determine  which international antitrafficking activities are working or how best to  tailor them to meet specific needs.
The fight against human trafficking will almost certainly require years of  effort and the continued monitoring of governments’ actions. To enhance  its usefulness as a diplomatic tool, the narratives and country rankings in  the annual Trafficking in Persons Report must be viewed as credible by  governments and informed human rights and country observers. However,  the report does not comprehensively or clearly describe how decisions  about tier rankings were reached. Moreover, problems identified in the  report provide the means to better identify program needs and allocate  resources, but agencies have not linked their activities to identified  deficiencies.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve efforts to combat trafficking in persons abroad, we recommend  that the Secretary of State, in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Task  Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, consider the following actions: 1. Work closely with relevant agencies as they implement U.S. law calling  for research into the creation of an effective mechanism to develop a  global estimate of trafficking. This could include assigning a trafficking  data and research unit to serve as an interagency focal point charged  with developing an overall research strategy, collecting and analyzing  data, and directing research.
2.
In conjunction with relevant agencies, develop and implement a  strategic approach that would delineate agency roles and  responsibilities in relation to each other, strengthen mechanisms for  integrating activities, and determine priorities, measurable goals, time  frames, performance measures, and a methodology to gauge results. 3. To improve the credibility of State’s annual report on trafficking in  persons, we recommend that the Secretary of State ensure that the  report clearly documents the rationale and support for tier rankings  and improve the report’s usefulness for programming by making the  narratives more comprehensive.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of  State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor;  the Administrator of USAID; the U.S. government agency that prepares the  trafficking estimate; and cognizant officials at the ILO, IOM, and UNODC,  or their designees. We received written comments from State, which are  reprinted in appendix V along with our responses to specific points.
State generally agreed with our recommendations. State agreed with our  first recommendation to work closely with relevant agencies as they  implement U.S. law calling for research into the creation of an effective  mechanism to develop a global estimate of trafficking and provided  detailed suggestions for areas of future research that are consistent with  our findings. Regarding our second recommendation that the Secretary of  State develop and implement a strategic approach, State recognized the  need for better performance measures and enhanced interagency  coordination while also stating that roles and responsibilities have been  established. In response, we clarified our recommendation to state that  agencies’ roles and responsibilities should be delineated in relation to each  other, consistent with our report findings. In response to our third  recommendation, State said that while its annual Trafficking in Persons  Report can improve, it has become a much richer, more useful product  since first published in 2001. State also said our report includes some  useful recommendations that the department will explore integrating with  ongoing efforts in light of available resources. In addition, State  commented that its 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report offers a greater  and more consistent examination of the minimum standards as they apply  to each country. We conducted a selective review of 26 tier 1 country  narratives in the 2006 report and found that many of the concerns we cited  in our report remain. For example, none of the tier 1 country narratives  clearly explained whether or not the government complied with the second  minimum standard established in the TVPA, which, among other things,  calls for governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking that is  commensurate with that for grave crimes such as forcible sexual assault.
In oral comments, the U.S. government agency that prepares the trafficking  estimate fundamentally concurs with our characterization of the U.S.  global estimate of trafficking flows. The agency stated that it has sought to  improve upon the 2004 estimate’s accuracy and utility through working  with an outside contractor with the intention of thoroughly documenting  and vetting a methodology, as well as preparing detailed recommendations  for improving future estimates. According to the agency, many of this  contractor’s initial recommendations have been in-line with those  delineated in our report. Despite these efforts and the inherent difficulty of  preparing estimates of hidden populations, the agency agreed with our  overall findings—particularly with the idea that housing the estimate in the  intelligence community makes it opaque and inaccessible. The agency  stated that it believes that other U.S. government agencies are best  positioned to produce the global trafficking estimate in the future, because  they have access to the same unclassified data, would be better able to vet  the methodology, and could provide additional information to allow for a  closer link between international and domestic human trafficking flow  estimates.
State, Justice, Labor, USAID, the U.S. government agency that prepared the  trafficking estimate, and the ILO, IOM, and UNODC submitted technical  comments which we have incorporated into this report as appropriate.
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, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretaries of State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland  Security, and Labor; the Administrator of USAID; the U.S. government  agency that prepares the trafficking estimate; ILO; IOM; and UNODC; and  interested congressional committees. Copies of this report will also be  made available to other interested parties on request. In addition, this  report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-9601. 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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine (1) estimates of the extent of global  trafficking in persons, (2) the U.S. government’s strategy to combat  trafficking in persons abroad, and (3) the Department of State’s (State)  process for evaluating foreign governments’ antitrafficking efforts.
To examine estimates of the extent of global human trafficking, we  conducted an analysis of the global trafficking databases developed and  maintained by the U.S. government, the International Organization for  Migration (IOM), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the U.N.  Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).  We met with officials from each  organization, determined the reliability of their global trafficking data,  reviewed documents and assessed their methodologies for collecting and  analyzing human trafficking data, and analyzed the data collected by IOM.  We examined ILO, UNODC, and IOM reports. We also reviewed the  existing relevant literature on data and methodologies used in global  human trafficking research. We collected reports, journal articles,  conference presentations, U.S. government sponsored studies, and books  that discuss human trafficking. We read and analyzed these documents and  used them to identify issues that affect the quality of data on trafficking. We  grouped these issues into three major categories: availability, reliability,  and comparability.
To examine the U.S. government’s strategy for combating human  trafficking abroad, we reviewed U.S. laws and presidential directives  describing actions that various U.S. government entities were to undertake  in combating trafficking. These include the Trafficking Victims Protection  Act (TVPA) of 2000 and its reauthorizations in 2003 and 2005, Executive  Order 13257, and National Security Presidential Directive 22. We also  analyzed documents and interviewed officials from the Departments of  Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice,  Labor, State, and the United States Agency for International Development  (USAID). Documents we reviewed include each agency’s plan to implement  the presidential directive, agency and project-level monitoring and  evaluation documents, project proposals, interagency coordination  guidance, the Bureau Performance Plan from State’s Office to Monitor and  Combat Trafficking in Persons, USAID’s strategy to combat trafficking in  persons, as well as regional and country-level strategic framework  documents.
To examine State’s process for evaluating foreign governments’  antitrafficking efforts, we reviewed 122 country narratives in the 2005  Trafficking in Persons Report. We examined the narratives for all 66  countries in tier 1, tier 2 watch list, and tier 3. For the 77 narratives in tier 2,  we reviewed all of the narratives for the 35 countries whose tiers had  changed from the previous year’s report. For the remaining 42 country  narratives, we drew a random probability sample of 21 countries. With this  probability sample, each narrative in the 2005 report had a nonzero  probability of being included and that probability could be computed for  any member. Each sample element was subsequently weighted in the  analysis to account statistically for all the narratives in the 2005 report,  including those not selected. Because we followed a probability procedure  based on a random selection of tier 2 countries, our sample is only one of a  large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample  could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the  precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence  interval (e.g., plus or minus 5 percentage points). This is the interval that  would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we  could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the  intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population.  All percentage estimates from the narrative review have margins of error of  plus or minus 7 percentage points or less, unless otherwise noted.
In addition, we systematically compared the country narratives describing  these governments’ antitrafficking efforts with the minimum standards and  five core criteria in the legislation and determined whether or not the  country narrative mentioned each standard or criteria. If the country  narrative did not mention a standard or criteria, we coded that as “not  mentioned.” If the country narrative did mention a standard or criteria, we  determined whether the narrative showed that the government complied or  did not comply with the standard or criteria. If we determined that the  narrative showed that the government complied with the standard or  criteria, we coded that as “yes.” If we determined that the narrative showed  that the government did not comply with the standard or criteria, we coded  that as “no.” In some cases, the narrative mentioned a standard or criteria,  but we could not determine conclusively whether or not the narrative  demonstrated the government’s compliance. We coded those cases as “not  clear.” Finally, elements of some criteria were not applicable to certain  countries. For example, if the report described a country as a source of  trafficking victims rather than as a destination for victims, the criterion  regarding provision of victims with legal alternatives to deportation would  not apply. We coded these cases as “not applicable.” We then tallied the  number of responses in each category.
Finally, to ensure analytical validity and reliability, our analysis involved  multiple phases of checking and review of analytical procedures,  categories, and results. Two GAO analysts reviewed a selection of country  narratives, independently coded them, and agreed on the basis for the  coding decisions. Next, one GAO analyst performed the coding for the  remaining country narratives. A second GAO analyst reviewed a number of  these coding decisions and both analysts discussed them. Finally, a third  GAO analyst performed a review of all coding decisions and tabulations. In  addition, to ensure the reliability of the funding data used, we reviewed the  information collected by the State Department on each agency’s funding  obligations. We then checked with each individual agency to verify that the  amounts State reported were correct.
We conducted our review from September 2005 to May 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Methodologies Used by Four Organizations to Collect Data on Human Trafficking
paragraphs: This appendix describes the data sources, data validation, methodology,  and key assumptions used by the U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM  to collect data on and/or estimate the extent of human trafficking as well as  the limitations of these databases.  (See tables 4 and 5.)
section_title: Eight U.S. Government Entities’ Data on Human Trafficking
paragraphs: This appendix describes the data on human trafficking maintained by eight  U.S. government entities.  (See table 6.)
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter,  dated June 30, 2006.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. State agreed that more research would help in the fight against human  trafficking. State said that its Trafficking in Persons office (G/TIP)  continues to pursue better estimates of the scope of trafficking; that the  Senior Policy Operating Group (the Group) has established a  subcommittee on trafficking research to, among other things, ensure  regular interagency communication on research and close the most  important data gaps; that G/TIP plans to set aside a substantial portion  of its program budget for trafficking research; and that G/TIP funds  IOM’s database.  We recognize two ongoing projects to develop better  estimates of trafficking and note that it is too early to assess the results  of these projects. The Group subcommittee began meeting within the  past year and, at the time of our review, had not established research  priorities.  During our review, G/TIP staff expressed concern about the  limited amount of funding available for research, including continued  funding for IOM’s database, which G/TIP partially funds.   2. State said that a better global estimate of the number of trafficking  victims should not be the primary focus of additional research  initiatives.  State said a more valuable approach would be information  on the comparative severity of trafficking in particular regions,  countries, or localities; on the methods used by traffickers; and the  effectiveness of antitrafficking programs.  We believe our  recommendation is consistent with State’s comments.  We agree that  additional research on these areas is valuable as discussed in the  report.  We report that reliable and comparable country data do not  exist.  We also report that U.S. agencies collect information on  traffickers and their victims but do not share their information or  analyze the information to identify trends and compile a profile of  victims.  We also describe the value of IOM’s database in providing  information on traffickers’ routes and nationalities and the mechanisms  they use to identify and manipulate their victims.  We also agree that  more information on the effectiveness of antitrafficking programs is  needed, and we note that little or no evidence is currently available to  indicate the extent to which different types of efforts impact the level  of trafficking.  Our recommendation calls upon the Secretary of State,  in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and  Combat Trafficking in Persons, to consider assigning a trafficking data  and research unit but does not call for setting up a new unit as State’s  comments suggest. 3. State agreed with the need for better performance measures, said that  the Group is looking at how to reconcile the different agency grants  processes so as to achieve an earlier exchange of information, and said  that State will address enhanced interagency coordination in its  upcoming G/TIP office strategy.  State said that roles and  responsibilities of government agencies in combating trafficking in  persons have been established.  We have clarified our recommendation  to state that agencies’ roles and responsibilities should be delineated in  relation to each other, consistent with our report findings.  State also  said that the Group creates an active forum where interagency  representatives work together to identify strengths and weaknesses of  of the Group’s the U.S. approach to combat trafficking in real time.   State also said that the Attorney General’s annual report and several of  the Group’s subcommittees focus on improving efforts to combat  trafficking in persons.  We reported findings from the Attorney  General’s report.  We also reported that the Group, through the work of  its various subcommittees, served as a forum for agency officials to  discuss trafficking policy and programs.  However, based on  information from the other Group members, we believe that our report  remains accurate in also stating that the Group has not developed or  implemented a systematic way for agencies to identify priorities and  target efforts abroad to complement each others’ activities to achieve  greater results than if the agencies were acting alone.  4. The Department of State agrees with our finding that its annual  Trafficking in Persons Report could provide more comprehensive and  clearer explanations for the tier ranking decisions. The Department of  State said that the 2006 report offers a greater and more consistent  examination of the minimum standards as they apply to each country.   We conducted a selective review of 26 tier 1 country narratives in the  2006 report and found that many of the concerns we cited in our report  remain.  For example, none of the tier 1 country narratives clearly  explained how the government complied with the second minimum  standard established in the TVPA, which, among other things, calls for  governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking involving  force, fraud, or coercion that is commensurate with that for grave  crimes such as forcible sexual assault.  Also, as in the 2005 report, our  review found that some tier 1 country narratives in the 2006 report  described governments’ failure to comply with certain core criteria, but  the narratives did not explain how the governments’ success in meeting  the other core criteria outweighed these deficiencies and justified their  placement in tier 1.  We acknowledge in our report that the Department  of State is not legislatively mandated to include country narratives in  the annual Trafficking in Persons Report.  However, the 2006  Trafficking in Persons Report and reports from previous years  characterize the country narratives as “an assessment of the  government’s compliance with the minimum standards … as laid out in  the TVPA of 2000, as amended.”  According to the report, the narratives  are also intended to explain the basis for the tier ranking decisions.  5. State said that under G/TIP’s current guidelines to keep narratives  short, readable, and focused on deficiencies, the Trafficking in  Persons Report does not provide (and the law does not require) an  exhaustive examination of compliance with all of the minimum  standards’ criteria. According to State, such an approach would create  lengthy country narratives that would lose their readability,  effectiveness, and policy relevance and would significantly increase the  size of the report.  As described in our report, we did not assess  whether the 2005 report’s country narratives considered all 10 criteria  for the fourth minimum standard, and we do not criticize the  Department of State for failing to provide an exhaustive examination of  governments’ compliance with all 10 of these criteria.  Instead, our  analysis focused on the four minimum standards required by the TVPA;  and for the fourth standard, we looked only at whether the narratives  explained governments’ compliance with the five core criteria  identified by the Trafficking Office.  We believe these issues can be  discussed while maintaining a concise reporting format.  6. State said the TVPA requires the Trafficking in Persons Report to  include countries with a “significant number of victims of severe forms  of trafficking.”  As a matter of policy the minimum “significant number  of victims” has been defined as 100. As discussed in our report, our  interviews with State officials as well as our review of the 2005 report’s  country narratives indicated that some countries’ inclusion in the  report was questionable.  State acknowledges that many countries have  not analyzed their crime statistics through the prism of trafficking in  persons, making the available data unreliable.   7. State said the law does not clearly define what constitutes a sufficient  sentence to deter, or that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the  offense. The department has defined “sufficiently stringent”  punishment to mean time in jail, preferably at least several years in jail.
We recognize the subjectivity of the third minimum standard in our  report.  Even though some narratives indicate that countries prescribe  jail time, State’s report does not explicitly state the department’s  definition that sufficiently stringent means some jail time nor did some  of the narratives state that the punishment was sufficiently stringent.   Thus, it is unclear how the government complied with this minimum  standard.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Cheryl Goodman, Assistant Director; Suzanne Dove; Christina Werth;  Gergana Danailova-Trainor; Bruce Kutnick; Barbara Stolz; and Patrick  Dickriede made key contributions to this report.  In addition, Lynn Cothern,  Martin de Alteriis, Etana Finkler, and Mary Moutsos provided technical or  legal assistance.