Human Trafficking: Investigations in Indian Country or Involving Native Americans and Actions Needed to Better Report on Victims Served
Published: 2017-09-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Human trafficking is the exploitation of a person typically through force, fraud or coercion for purposes such as forced labor or commercial sex, and it involves vulnerable populations including Native Americans. Several components within DOJ, DHS, and the Department of Interior investigate and prosecute human trafficking in Indian country, and federal agencies provide grant funding to support efforts to combat trafficking and assist victims.
This testimony focuses on trafficking occurring in Indian country or involving Native Americans and addresses the extent to which: (1) federal agencies collect and maintain data on investigations and prosecutions; (2) tribal and major city LEAs encounter trafficking and the factors that affect their ability to investigate and prosecute such activities; and, (3) federal grant programs are available to help address trafficking and how well the granting agencies are positioned to know the number of victims served. This testimony is based on GAO reports issued in March and July 2017. To do this work GAO reviewed federal trafficking data and conducted three surveys. We surveyed the 203 known tribal LEAs, 86 major city LEAs, and 315 victim service provider organizations that received fiscal year 2015 DOJ or HHS grants that could be used to assist human trafficking victims.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While federal agencies generally maintain data on human trafficking cases that occur in Indian country, they do not maintain data on whether the victims are Native American (Native American status). 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—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 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. Also, officials from the four agencies said they do not maintain data on Native American status of victims for various reasons, including that such data has no impact on their investigations and prosecutions.
Some law enforcement agencies (LEA) reported encountering human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans and cited victim reluctance to participate in investigations and other factors as barriers to investigation and prosecution. Of the 132 tribal LEAs that responded to GAO's survey, 27 reported initiating investigations they considered to have involved human trafficking from 2014 to 2016. Few major city LEAs—6 of 61 survey respondents—reported that they encountered human trafficking involving Native American victims from 2014 to 2016. Further, among the 27 responding tribal LEAs, 18 indicated that they believe victims are reluctant to participate in investigations for reasons including drug addiction and distrust of law enforcement.
The departments of Justice (DOJ), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) administered 50 federal grant programs from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 that can be used to address human trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, but DOJ could do more to identify the number of Native American victims served. For example, DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women 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 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 demographic. GAO recommended 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 agreed to implement the first part of this recommendation, but did not agree to the second part, citing victim confidentiality and other reasons. In June 2017, DOJ reported ongoing and planned actions to better capture the number of victims served but reiterated its concerns about collecting Native American status. GAO maintains that collecting grantee information on both the number and Native American status of victims served is important and will continue to monitor implementation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recently completed work on  human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans.
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.  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, involvement in foster care programs, and lack of  resources or support systems. 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, an estimated 27 percent of Native  American women had been raped in their lifetime compared to 18 percent  of American women, overall. In addition, Indian children enter foster care  at twice the rate of all American children.
My testimony today summarizes our research on human trafficking in  Indian country and of Native Americans, including federal efforts to  address this issue and perspectives from tribal and local law enforcement  agencies and victim service providers. Specifically, my statement  addresses the extent to which:  (1)  federal agencies collect and maintain data on investigations and  prosecutions of human trafficking in Indian country or of Native  Americans regardless of location;  (2)  tribal and major city law enforcement agencies (LEA) have  encountered human trafficking in Indian country or of Native  Americans, as well as the factors that affect their ability to  investigate and prosecute such activities; and  (3)  federal grant programs are available to help address human  trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans, and how well  positioned agencies are to know the number of Native American  trafficking victims served.
This statement is based on a report that we issued in March 2017 and  another report that we issued in July 2017. For the purposes of our  reviews, our discussion of human trafficking relates to: (a) human  trafficking that occurs in Indian country (regardless of whether the victim  is Native American); and (b) human trafficking of individuals who are  Native American (regardless of whether they were trafficked in Indian  country or elsewhere).
For our March 2017 work on federal agencies’ data collection, we  obtained and reviewed data from federal investigative and prosecutorial  agencies on the number of human trafficking investigations and  prosecutions they conducted for which the crime occurred in Indian  country or at least one of the victims was Native American. We obtained  data for fiscal years 2013 through 2016, the most recently available data.  We determined that the data, when available, were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of our reporting objectives. For our July 2017 work on tribal  and major city LEAs’ experiences, we conducted surveys of three groups:  all known tribal LEAs (132 of 203 responded); major city LEAs (61 of 86  responded); and victim service providers (162 of 315 responded). For our  work on federal grant programs, we reviewed fiscal year 2014 and 2015  human trafficking grant programs identified through our prior human  trafficking work and interviewed federal officials responsible for  administering human trafficking-related grant programs to learn whether  the granting agencies required grantees to report whether the victims they  served were Native American (Native American status). Further details on  the scope and methodology for our previously issued reports are  available within each published product. We conducted the work on which  this statement is based in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan  and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As of January 2017, there were 567 federally recognized American Indian  and Alaska Native tribes and villages. According to the Department of the  Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), there are approximately  326 Indian land areas in the United States that are administered as  federal Indian reservations or other tribal lands. 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.
Several components within the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department  of Homeland Security (DHS), and DOI have responsibility for investigating  and prosecuting human trafficking crimes in Indian country. The Federal  Bureau of Investigation (FBI), within DOJ, has investigative  responsibilities in Indian country where the federal government has  criminal jurisdiction. The FBI 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.
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. Unlike FBI  and BIA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—a DHS  component—is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian  country but may assist with criminal investigations at the request of the  tribe, according to DHS officials.
Forty-nine of DOJ’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ 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. According to  Executive Office for United States Attorneys officials, some districts with  large amounts of Indian country have more than one Assistant U.S.  Attorney assigned to the position of Tribal Liaison.
In addition to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes,  federal agencies, primarily DOJ and the Department of Health and  Human Services (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, and the National Institute of Justice, 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, which includes the Office on  Trafficking in Persons, the Children’s Bureau, the Family and Youth  Services Bureau, and the Administration for Native Americans.
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
paragraphs: In March 2017, we reported that all four federal agencies that investigate  or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country—the FBI, BIA, ICE, and  the 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.
According to information provided to us by federal agencies that  investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country, there were  14 federal investigations and 2 federal prosecutions of human trafficking  offenses in Indian country from fiscal years 2013 through 2016. From  fiscal years 2013 through 2015, there were over 6,100 federal human  trafficking investigations and approximately 1,000 federal human  trafficking prosecutions, overall. In certain circumstances, state or tribal  law enforcement may have jurisdiction to investigate crimes in Indian  country; therefore, these figures likely do not represent the total number  of human trafficking-related cases in Indian country. Also, considering  that human trafficking is known to be an underreported crime, it is unlikely  that these figures, or any other investigative or prosecutorial data,  represent the full extent to which human trafficking is occurring in Indian  country.
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.  According to the limited data that were available, federal agencies  initiated at least 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.
Federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies provided two primary  reasons why they generally do not collect information on the Native  American status of victims. First, according to officials from DOJ’s  Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Native American status has  no impact on whether the federal government can investigate or  prosecute cases outside of Indian country. 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. 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: Some Law Enforcement Agencies Reported Encountering Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, and Cited Victim Reluctance to Participate in Investigations and Other Factors as Barriers to Investigation and Prosecution
subsections: section_title: Tribal and Major City Law Enforcement Agencies Reported Encountering Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans
paragraphs: In our report released in July 2017, we found that of the 132 tribal LEAs  that responded to our survey, 27 reported that they initiated investigations  they considered to have involved human trafficking from 2014 to 2016, as  shown in figure 1.
Of the 27 tribal LEAs that reported initiating investigations involving  human trafficking from 2014 to 2016, 24 provided the number of  investigations that they conducted during that period. Those 24 reported a  total of 70 human trafficking investigations from 2014 to 2016, ranging  from 0 to 8 investigations for each tribal LEA in each year. Additionally, 22  of the 24 tribal LEAs reported a total of 58 victims from 2014 to 2016.  The number of victims encountered by each LEA ranged from 0 to 7  victims in each investigation.
Few major city LEAs reported that they encountered human trafficking  from 2014 to 2016 that involved Native American victims. Specifically, 6 of the 61 major city LEAs that responded to our survey reported initiating  human trafficking investigations that involved at least one Native  American victim during that period, as shown in figure 2.
Of the 6 major city LEAs that reported initiating any human trafficking  investigations involving Native American victims, 5 also identified the  number of investigations and victims involved. Those 5 LEAs reported a  total of 60 investigations involving 81 Native American victims from 2014  to 2016. For each investigation, the number of Native American victims  ranged from 0 to 31. Of those 5 LEAs, one respondent—the Minneapolis  Police Department—reported the majority of investigations and victims.  Specifically, the Minneapolis Police Department reported 49 of the 60  total investigations and 70 of the 81 total victims from 2014 to 2016. In  meetings with officials from the Minneapolis Police Department, they  stated that they made a concerted effort, starting in 2012, to meet with  tribal elders and service providers who worked with the Native American  population to demonstrate their willingness to investigate human  trafficking crimes. The officials stated that, following those meetings, the  number of human trafficking crimes involving Native American victims that  were reported to the department increased.
section_title: Some Tribal LEA Survey Respondents Believe More Human Trafficking Is Occurring but Is Not Being Reported
paragraphs: Nearly half of tribal LEA respondents (60 of 132) reported that they  believe human trafficking is occurring on tribal land in their jurisdictions  beyond what had been brought to their attention. Officials from two tribal  LEAs told us during in-person meetings that in their experience some  victims do not come forward to report their victimization because they are  embarrassed or feel ashamed. Several survey respondents also indicated  that they suspect there is more human trafficking than what has been  reported to them because of the presence of casinos on their land (14 of  60). For example, officials from one tribal LEA explained that the tribal  casino hotel may be used as a venue for sex trafficking. Some  respondents (13 of 60) suspect that sex trafficking may be occurring as  part of some of the drug crimes that they investigate. Officials from one  county LEA we visited near a tribal community told us that officers may  not recognize that human trafficking is taking place, particularly when it  occurs alongside another crime like drug trafficking.
Most major city LEA respondents (51 of 61) indicated that they did not  suspect or did not know whether more human trafficking of Native  Americans is occurring in their jurisdiction, beyond what has been  reported to them. Of those 51 that responded, 24 explained that this was  the consequence of having few, if any, Native Americans in their  jurisdiction. Ten of the 61 major city LEAs reported that they believe more  human trafficking of Native Americans is occurring and cited possible  reasons for the lack of reporting. One major city LEA with a high  concentration of Native American constituents reported that there is a  social stigma associated with reporting crimes to the police among Native  Americans. A third major city respondent cited the poor relationship  between the Native American community and city police department as a  reason for the lack of referrals of human trafficking crimes.
section_title: Law Enforcement Agencies Cited Victim Reluctance to Participate in Investigations and Other Factors as Barriers to Investigating and Prosecuting Human Trafficking
paragraphs: We asked survey respondents about barriers to investigating human  trafficking cases. Of the 27 tribal LEAs that reported initiating  investigations involving human trafficking, 18 indicated that they believe  victims are reluctant to participate in the investigation or prosecution of  their case. These respondents cited the following reasons for victims’  reluctance to participate in investigations or prosecutions as “somewhat  common” or “very common”:
The victim fears retaliation from the trafficker (17 of 18 respondents),
The victim is traumatized (16 of 18),
The victim does not see herself or himself as a victim (16 of 18),
The victim distrusts law enforcement (14 of 18),
The victim is sentimentally attached to the trafficker (13 of 18),
The victim is underage and does not want to return home (10 of 18),
The victim is addicted to drugs (17 of 18).
In addition, one of the tribal LEA respondents told us during an interview  that, in his experience, drugs are always associated with crimes involving  human trafficking. On our survey, when asked how frequently tribal LEA  survey respondents identified other crimes when investigating possible  human trafficking, 21 of 27 tribal LEAs that initiated human trafficking  investigations also reported encountering drug distribution and drug  trafficking “sometimes” or “frequently.”
Over half of the tribal LEAs that responded to our survey (72 of 132)  identified one or more types of assistance that they would like to receive  to help identify and address human trafficking in their jurisdiction. These  were:
Additional training or technical assistance (50 of 72 respondents).  Officials from one tribal LEA we interviewed expressed interest in  training that focuses on building trust between tribal and non-tribal  representatives and helps make tribal law enforcement and  community members aware of existing federal resources.
Additional funding (28 of 72). Several tribal LEAs reported an interest  in receiving additional federal funding to add staff support, including  officers in some instances, to assist in investigations.
We also surveyed victim service providers about ways that the federal  government could support their efforts to serve Native American human  trafficking victims. The 42 service providers that reported providing  services to Native American victims of human trafficking from 2014 to  2016 most frequently cited two areas in which the federal government  could support them. Those areas were:
Additional funding for service provider programs (19 of 42  respondents). Respondents cited a need for funding for additional  staff and funding specifically targeted to tribal programs.
Additional information to increase public awareness and training for  service providers and LEAs (12 of 42). Respondents cited a need for  training focused on identifying victims for both service providers and  tribal LEAs, how to develop tribal trafficking statutes, and training on  how to work with Native American populations effectively.
section_title: Fifty Federal Grant Programs Can Be Used to Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, but DOJ Could do More to Identify the Number of Native American Victims Served
paragraphs: In March 2017, we reported that DOJ, HHS, and DHS administered 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 because the agencies  do not track this information. HHS officials told us they are developing a  data collection tool that grantees can use to report information on human  trafficking victims served, including Native American status of victims. We  reported that DOJ’s OVW requires grantees to report Native American  status of victims served, but not by type of crime. DOJ’s OVC and the  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, which DOJ, DHS, and HHS jointly  developed, 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. Thus we concluded that without collecting data on the Native  American status of victims served, federal agencies would 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. Therefore, we recommended in  March 2017 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 agreed with our recommendation. In its comments, DOJ  indicated it would implement the first part of the recommendation, 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 recommendation, which is to require grantees to report the Native  American status of those victims. DOJ identified several reasons why  grantees should not be required to report the Native American status of  trafficking victims, including a potential chilling effect on service delivery,  victim confidentiality, and overburdening of grantees. When we published  our March 2017 report, we acknowledged DOJ’s concerns, but  maintained that collecting grantee information on the Native American  status of victims served would be useful to better serve this demographic.  Following our report’s issuance, DOJ reported in June 2017, that OVW  already collects consolidated data on the number of American Indian and  Alaska Native victims served who are victims of all crimes and it is in the  process of revising grantee forms to collect information on the number of  people served who are victims of sex trafficking. DOJ also explained that  OJJDP human trafficking grantees will be required to report the number of  human trafficking victims served beginning with progress reports ending  December 31, 2017 and that OJJDP will update applicable solicitations  beginning in fiscal year 2018 to reflect this new measure. DOJ reported  no new efforts from OVC, and maintained that it will not require grantees  to report on the Native American status of their victims served using grant  funding because of the concerns it cited initially. We continue to assert  that collecting grantee information on both the number and Native  American status of victims served is important and will continue to  monitor implementation.
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee,  this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to  any questions that you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Homeland Security and Justice 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 statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  are Joy Booth, Assistant Director; Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, Analyst-in  Charge; Kisha Clark; Steven Rocker; Susan Hsu; Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi;  Michele Fejfar; and David Blanding. Key contributors to the previous work  on which this testimony is based are listed in each product.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.