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

Letter

Background

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.

While Federal Agencies Generally Maintain Data on Human Trafficking Cases in Indian Country, They Do Not Maintain Data on Native American Status of Victims

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.

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

Tribal and Major City Law Enforcement Agencies Reported Encountering Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans

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.

Some Tribal LEA Survey Respondents Believe More Human Trafficking Is Occurring but Is Not Being Reported

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.

Law Enforcement Agencies Cited Victim Reluctance to Participate in Investigations and Other Factors as Barriers to Investigating and Prosecuting Human Trafficking

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.

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

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.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

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.