Human Trafficking: Action Needed to Identify the Number of Native American Victims Receiving Federally-funded Services
Released: 2017-04-06T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Indian Country and the Native American Population

As of January 2017, there were 567 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. According to BIA, there were approximately 326 Indian land areas in the United States that are administered as federal Indian reservations or other tribal lands (e.g., reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.). These land areas can generally be referred to as Indian country, which spans more than 56 million acres and 36 states, and varies in size, demographics, and location. For example, the Navajo Nation consists of approximately 27,000 square miles, whereas certain areas of Indian country in California comprise less than 1 square mile. The 2010 Census found that approximately 169,000 Native Americans lived on the Navajo reservation, while other areas of Indian country have fewer than 50 Native American residents. Indian country is often in remote, rural locations, or may also be located near urban areas. Indian country may have a mixture of Native American and non-Native American residents. Figure 1 illustrates where Indian country is located in the contiguous United States as of 2010.

According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million people in the United States identified as Native American, either alone or in combination with one or more other races. Out of this total, 2.9 million people—0.9 percent of the U.S. population at the time—identified as Native American alone. At the time of the 2010 Census, more than 1.1 million Native Americans resided on tribal lands. Figure 2 shows where Native Americans resided in the United States at the time of the 2010 Census.

Federal Law on Human Trafficking

Federal law generally recognizes two forms of human trafficking—sex trafficking and labor trafficking. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), as amended, defines human trafficking under the term “severe forms of trafficking in persons.” Pursuant to the TVPA, as amended, sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. Sex trafficking is a “severe” form of trafficking when it involves force, fraud or coercion, or where the victim has not attained 18 years of age, in which case force, fraud or coercion are not necessary elements. The TVPA, as amended, defines labor related trafficking generally as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

Federal efforts to combat and prevent human trafficking in the United States have evolved over time, including various laws that have established federal agencies’ roles in these efforts. During the 1990s, the United States began to take steps to address human trafficking at home and abroad. Over the past few decades, Congress has taken numerous legislative actions to help combat human trafficking and ensure that victims have access to needed services. In October 2000, the TVPA was enacted to combat trafficking in persons, ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers and protect trafficking victims. Among other things, the TVPA, as amended, makes it illegal to knowingly or recklessly use force, fraud, or coercion to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, obtain, advertise, maintain, patronize, or solicit any person to engage in a commercial sex act. In addition, the TVPA makes it a crime to use certain means, including force, threats of force, physical restraint, or serious harm or threats of such harm, to knowingly provide or obtain persons for any labor or services. TVPA reauthorization acts were enacted in 2003, 2006 and 2008; and, in 2013, provisions of the TVPA, its reauthorizations, and other related laws, were further amended.

In 2015, the President signed into law the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015. Among other things, this act required the Attorney General to ensure that law enforcement officers and federal prosecutors receive anti-trafficking training; required the Federal Judicial Center, the research and education agency of the federal judicial system, to provide training for judges on ordering restitution for victims of certain trafficking-related offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, U.S. Code; mandated that the Secretary of Homeland Security implement a human trafficking training program for department personnel; required the Attorney General to implement and maintain a national strategy for combating human trafficking; established the Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund to supplement existing statutorily authorized grants or activities; and amended the federal definition of child abuse to include human trafficking.

Jurisdiction over Crimes Committed in Indian Country

As a general principle, the federal government recognizes Native American tribes as “distinct, independent political communities” with inherent powers of self-government to regulate their “internal and social relations,” which include enacting substantive law over internal matters and enforcing that law in their own forums. However, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has plenary and exclusive authority to regulate or modify the powers of self-government that tribes otherwise possess, and has exercised this authority to establish an intricate web of jurisdiction over crime in Indian country.

As determined by relevant statutes, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country depends on several factors, including the Native American status of the victim and alleged offender, the nature of the crime, and whether jurisdiction has been conferred on a particular entity (e.g., the state in which Indian country is located) by, for example, federal treaty or statute. The General Crimes Act, as amended, extends the criminal laws of the federal government into Indian country and generally establishes federal criminal jurisdiction where either, but not both, the alleged offender or the victim is Native American. In addition, federal criminal jurisdiction may attach to a crime, such as a human trafficking offense committed in Indian country, if it affects interstate or foreign commerce. With the exception of certain circumstances involving domestic or dating violence offenses or violations of protection orders, tribal governments do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Native American offenders, even if the victim is Native American and the crime occurred in Indian country. Rather, non-Native American offenders who commit crimes against Native Americans may be prosecuted by the federal government, or by a state government, where jurisdiction has been conferred on a state.

Federal Agencies Responsible for Investigating and Prosecuting Human Trafficking Crimes in Indian Country

Several components within DOJ, DHS, and DOI have responsibility for investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes in Indian country, as shown in figure 3.

The FBI has investigative responsibilities for Indian country where the federal government has criminal jurisdiction, and has assigned more than 100 agents and 40 victim assistance staff, located in 19 of its 56 field offices, to work Indian country cases full time. In addition, the FBI’s headquarters-based Indian country Crimes Unit promotes liaison and intelligence sharing through its Safe Trails Task Forces and working groups and provides training to Indian country law enforcement in partnership with DOJ and BIA.

BIA is statutorily responsible for enforcing federal law and, with the consent of the tribe, tribal law in Indian country. BIA supports tribes in their efforts to ensure public safety and administer justice within Indian country, as well as to provide related services directly or to enter into contracts or compacts with federally recognized tribes to administer the law enforcement program. To that end, BIA’s Office of Justice Services (OJS) provides direct law enforcement services for 40 tribes. Specifically, BIA provides both uniformed police and criminal investigative services for 32 of these tribes, and criminal investigative services for 8 of these tribes, with a total of 301 uniformed police, 62 criminal investigators, and 19 victim assistance staff. Two hundred three tribes have their own law enforcement agencies that are operated by the tribes and funded either by contracts or compacts, or by the tribes, themselves. Further, the agency is responsible for developing and providing training and technical assistance to tribal law enforcement, and for consulting with tribal leaders to develop regulatory policies and other actions that affect public safety and justice in Indian country. Unlike FBI and BIA, ICE is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country but may assist with criminal investigations at the request of the tribe, according to ICE HSI officials.

Forty-nine of the 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) include Indian country within their jurisdiction. Each of these USAOs has at least one Assistant U.S. Attorney appointed as Tribal Liaison. Each Tribal Liaison is responsible for most dealings with tribes in their district. Officials noted that some districts with large amounts of Indian country have more than one Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the position of Tribal Liaison. According to Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) officials, there are approximately 168 attorneys, including 62 attorneys who have been designated as Tribal Liaisons, who handle a significant portion of Indian country cases as part of their work duties in these 49 offices. Also in these offices, there are 78 victim assistance staff, including 12 victim assistance staff who are exclusively assigned to work Indian country matters, who assist victims and work on cases arising from Indian country. However, the other attorneys and victim assistance staff may also assist with Indian country cases, when needed. The Civil Rights Division and Criminal Division within DOJ may also prosecute human trafficking cases; however, officials from these offices stated that any Indian country human trafficking prosecutions they conduct would be done in collaboration with the U.S. Attorney’s Offices that have jurisdiction in the geographical areas where the crime took place.

Federal Agencies Responsible for Administering Grant Programs to Address Human Trafficking

In addition to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking crimes, federal agencies, primarily DOJ and HHS, support efforts to combat human trafficking and assist victims. Several components within DOJ, including the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and the Office of Justice Programs, which includes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), provide grants to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies combat human trafficking and to support nongovernmental organizations and others in assisting trafficking victims or conducting research on human trafficking in the United States. HHS provides grant funding to entities to provide services and support for trafficking victims, primarily through the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which includes the Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP), the Children’s Bureau, the Family and Youth Services Bureau, and the Administration for Native Americans. These services include housing, employment, education, food, clothing, job training, medical care, and child care. Further, OTIP coordinates anti-trafficking responses across multiple systems of care. Specifically, HHS builds the capacity of health care providers, child welfare, social service providers and other first responders likely to interact with potential victims of trafficking through a variety of grant programs.

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

Three of the Four Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies Maintain Data on Human Trafficking Cases in Indian Country

All four agencies that have the authority to investigate or prosecute human trafficking in Indian country—FBI, BIA, ICE HSI, and the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO)—are required to record in their case management systems if a human trafficking offense was involved in the case. Three of these agencies—FBI, BIA, and the USAOs—also record in their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. According to officials from these three agencies, they record whether the crime took place in Indian country to help establish whether they have jurisdiction to investigate or prosecute the crime. ICE HSI officials explained that they do not have a field for Indian country in their case management system because, unlike BIA and the FBI, ICE HSI is not generally involved in criminal investigations in Indian country; rather, ICE HSI would only conduct an investigation in Indian country if specifically invited by a tribe to do so.

Prosecutions are cases where a charging document has been filed in district court. GAO-16-555.

According to USAO officials, one of the two prosecutions resulted in a conviction. applicability of those efforts to the Native American population.) Table 1 provides the number of federal human trafficking investigations and prosecutions in Indian country, by agency, from fiscal years 2013 through 2016.

Most of the Federal Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies that Address Human Trafficking Do Not Consistently Collect Native American Status of Victims in Their Cases

Three of the four federal agencies that investigate or prosecute human trafficking-related crimes do not require their agents or attorneys to consistently collect or record the race or ethnicity, including Native American status, of victims in their cases. Therefore, the total number of federal human trafficking investigations and prosecutions that involved Native American victims is unknown. Agents and attorneys may voluntarily collect this information and record it in their case management systems when there is a designated data field. The FBI and USAOs that have Indian country in their jurisdiction are statutorily required to collect and report information on victims’ Native American status when they decline to refer or prosecute an Indian country case, but not otherwise. Based on the limited data that were available, federal agencies initiated a minimum of 6 human trafficking investigations that involved Native American victims from fiscal years 2013 to 2016—the FBI Civil Rights Unit initiated 5 investigations and BIA initiated 1. Table 2 shows the policies of the investigative and prosecutorial agencies with respect to collecting information on victims’ Native American status.

Federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies provided two primary reasons why they do not collect information on the Native American status of victims, including concerns about relevance of Native American status to the substance of the case and victim privacy. For example, officials told us that Native American status of victims is only relevant for Indian country cases because it is necessary for establishing which law enforcement agency has jurisdiction over the case. According to EOUSA officials, Native American status has no impact on whether the federal government can investigate or prosecute cases outside of Indian country. Additionally, EOUSA officials said that when prosecutors have to determine the Native American status of victims in Indian country, they do not base that determination on the victim’s appearance or self-reporting. Instead, prosecutors must review tribal enrollment documents or obtain information on the victim’s blood quantum, and carrying out this process for victims outside of Indian country would be arduous. Similarly, FBI officials reported that they only collect information that is necessary for the investigation, which does not include the victim’s race or Native American status. Further, officials from all of the investigative and prosecutorial agencies raised concerns related to either the sensitivity of asking victims about their race or Native American status or collecting additional personal information about the victim that could make them identifiable to the defendant or others during the discovery phase of a criminal trial.

At Least 50 Federal Grant Programs Can Be Used to Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans, but Number of Native American Victims Served Is Unknown

DOJ, HHS, and DHS Grant Programs that Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans Can Be Used to Foster Collaboration and Provide Training and Victim Assistance, among Other Things

DOJ, HHS, and DHS administered at least 50 grant programs from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 that could help address human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans. Of the 50 grant programs, 45 specifically mention addressing human trafficking as an allowable use of funding and identify tribal entities as eligible recipients. The remaining five specifically mention assisting Native American crime victims as an allowable use, although human trafficking is not explicitly identified, as shown in figure 4 below. However, the total number of Native American human trafficking victims who received services under these grant programs is unknown.

Of the 45 grant programs that explicitly mention addressing human trafficking as an allowable use, 2 exclusively address human trafficking of Native Americans. In fiscal year 2016, OVC established two Project Beacon grant programs that are designed to increase the quantity and quality of services available to Native American victims of sex trafficking who reside in urban areas. One program offers qualified grant award recipients the opportunity to develop comprehensive, culturally appropriate services for Native American victims, while the other program was intended to provide an award to a qualified organization to provide training and technical assistance to organizations that received a direct services award. OVC made three awards under the direct services Project Beacon program fiscal year 2016, but was unable to make an award under the Project Beacon training and technical assistance program.

The 50 grant programs provide funding for various categories of activities, including collaboration activities, research, victim services, public awareness and training or technical assistance. A breakdown of the allowable uses is outlined in figure 5 below. (See app. II for a list of all grant programs and how the funding can be used.)

Collaboration and partnerships: 42 of the 50 grant programs allow funds to be used for collaboration between or within law enforcement and service providers through mechanisms such as task forces, coalitions, and partnerships. For example, the Tribal Governments Program, administered by OVW, strengthens the tribal criminal justice system’s response to human trafficking of Native American women by facilitating collaborative agreements between tribal law enforcement and tribal prosecution, and federal, state, or local partners to address sex trafficking, among other crimes. Another example is ACF’s Domestic Victims of Human Trafficking grant program, which requires grantees to provide a strategy for expanding victim service partnerships to enhance community response, including victims in historically marginalized populations like tribal communities.

Data, Research, and Evaluation: 19 of the 50 grant programs include an element of data collection on human trafficking cases, research on human trafficking, or evaluation of best practices. OVC’s Fellowship Program was established in 2002. Fellowships are competitively awarded through the OVC grant process. Fellows provide direct operational assistance to OVC in designing and developing innovative or enhanced service initiatives, management systems, training programs, capacity-building initiatives, and program evaluation efforts.

Victim services: 21 of the 50 grant programs can be used to provide services directly to victims of human trafficking, including Native Americans. Services include housing, health care, mental health and substance abuse services, and legal services. For example, the Social and Economic Development Strategies grant program, administered by ACF, can be used to develop and implement culturally appropriate strategies to provide outreach and services for Native American victims of sex trafficking.

Public awareness: 26 of the 50 grants may be used to raise public awareness of human trafficking. For example, OVW administers the Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions program, which works to design and conduct public education campaigns to increase the awareness of crimes against Native American women, including sex trafficking.

Training and technical assistance: 40 of the 50 grant programs may be used to provide training and technical assistance to service providers or law enforcement stakeholders on elements of identifying and serving victims of human trafficking. For example, the Defending Childhood American Indian/Alaska Native Policy Initiative program, administered by OJJDP, awards funding to entities that will design and implement training and technical assistance for tribal sites according to their needs.

DOJ and HHS Do Not Require Grantees to Report Data on the Number of Native American Victims Served

Among the 21 grant programs administered by DOJ and HHS that allowed for the provision of victim services, the number of Native American human trafficking victims who received services is unknown because agencies generally did not require grantees to report the Native American status of victims served. For example, 3 of the 21 grant programs—all of which are administered by OVW—currently require grantees to report the Native American status of victims served; that is, if the information is available and can be provided without compromising the victim’s safety or confidentiality. The remaining 18 grant programs do not require grantees to report the Native American status of victims served; however, 5 of these programs exclusively fund services for Native American victims, in which case the Native American status of victims served would have been determined for the purpose of program eligibility. However, even when grantees are required to report the Native American status of victims served or it is inherent in their reporting, grantees are only required to do so in the aggregate and not by the type of crime to which the victim was subjected. Therefore, the grantee data cannot be used to determine the number of Native American human trafficking victims that were served. Table 3 describes whether the agencies and components require grantees to report the Native American status of victims served.

In fiscal year 2015, HHS began its Human Trafficking Data Collection Project to establish uniform data collection across OTIP grant programs. According to HHS officials, the intent was to ultimately develop an interoperable platform that would ensure standard collection of data among a broader group of HHS grantees—including grantees that receive funding from other HHS components—that provide services to victims of trafficking and populations at high risk for trafficking. Grantees will be asked to report data on demographics and predisposing factors, services provided, costs of victim and survivor care, and unmet service needs. This would include capturing data on victims’ race and ethnicity, such as Native American status and tribal affiliation. HHS expects to pilot test these uniform data elements and make them available for public comment in fiscal year 2017, after which HHS may make revisions, submit the revised tool to the Office of Management and Budget for review, and then make the tool available to grantees.

According to OVC and OJJDP officials, they do not require grantees to collect and report victims’ Native American status because it is generally not an eligibility requirement for receiving victim services. They also raised concerns about whether including the victims’ race or Native American status in grant reports, which could be made available to the public, could compromise the victims’ confidentiality. According to OJJDP, its grantees are required to submit descriptive demographic data for youth victims served, and those data are included in OJJDP’s performance measurement system. However, this system does not include data on the Native American status of youth victims served; rather, grantees identify whether or not they provided services to any Native American youth victims during the reporting period. According to OVC, beginning in fiscal year 2017, OVC provided an optional category in the Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS) to allow grantees of human trafficking-specific grant programs—that is, grant programs funded by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—to report the race or Native American status of victims served. However, OVC does not require grantees to report the race of human trafficking victims because race is not a performance measure for OVC grantees. Also, OVC officials stated that in communities with few members of a particular race, if grantees have just one victim of that race in their data, people may correctly guess the identity of that victim. Similarly, OVW noted the importance of balancing the need for monitoring data with the provision of timely, accessible, and confidential services. OVW officials stated that OVW maintains this balance by collecting an aggregate number of Native American victims served during each 6-month reporting period rather than collecting this information for each type of victimization—including sex trafficking—which OVW officials believe could jeopardize victim confidentiality, especially in rural tribal communities. We understand the importance of maintaining victim confidentiality, in which case for grantees concerned that reporting the number of Native American human trafficking victims served could reveal the identity of those victims, OVC, OJJDP, and OVW could consider exempting them from any such reporting requirement on a case-by-case basis.

Also, while Native American status is generally not a factor for determining whether a victim can receive services or relevant for current performance measures, it may be a factor for determining how best to assist this particular demographic. According to the 2013-2017 Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States, expanding human trafficking data collection and research efforts for vulnerable populations, which include Native Americans, is an area for improvement for the federal government. The plan also states that vulnerable populations, including Native Americans, are often under- identified as victims, which leads to unreliable statistics. The plan states that the federal government acknowledges that it currently does not have enough information on human trafficking and service provision to Native Americans and other vulnerable populations to begin making recommendations on evidence-based practices to the field. It goes on to state that vulnerable populations require more attention and focus so that responses to human trafficking are effective and federal agencies are committed to spending the time and resources to learn more. The plan establishes goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable populations.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that quality information should be used to achieve objectives based on relevant data from reliable sources. Agencies are expected to identify the information requirements needed to meet their objectives and on a timely basis obtain the relevant data based on the requirements. Without collecting data on the Native American status of victims served, federal agencies will not know the extent to which they are achieving government-wide strategic goals to provide and improve services to vulnerable populations, including Native American crime victims.

In addition, awareness about whether a victim of human trafficking is Native American can be helpful to ensure culturally appropriate practices are made available in the healing and recovery process. HHS’ Administration for Native Americans reported that there is a need for culturally relevant and trauma-informed approaches when assisting victims. For example, using women’s circles and other culturally appropriate practices have proven helpful in the healing process for Native American victims. According to a Trafficking in Indian Country brief released by the National Congress for American Indians, many Native American human trafficking victims felt they owed their survival to Native cultural practices and most wished for Native healing approaches to be integrated with mainstream services.

Conclusions

Native Americans experience several risk factors that make them vulnerable to becoming victims of human trafficking. Federal agencies responsible for addressing human trafficking have acknowledged that Native Americans are a vulnerable population and have set agency and government-wide goals to help ensure public safety in Indian country and protect Native Americans from human trafficking and other crimes. Federal agencies that have the authority to investigate and prosecute human trafficking crimes in Indian country generally record in their case management systems whether the crime took place in Indian country. They do not always record the Native American status of victims, however, because that information may not generally be relevant to the case or it may have the potential to identify particular victims. Native American status may have relevance with respect to the provision of services, nonetheless. While victim confidentiality must be protected accordingly, the absence of data collection by granting agencies regarding the Native American status of human trafficking victims served hinders their ability to determine whether their victim assistance goals are being met. It may also make it difficult to determine where to focus their efforts on providing culturally appropriate services that have been shown to aid in the healing and restoration of Native American victims of crime.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that DOJ is contributing to efforts to improve data collection and service provision to Native Americans, we recommend that: the Director of OVW require grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served using grant funding, and, as appropriate, the Native American status of those victims; and the Assistant Attorney General for OJP direct OVC and OJJDP to require their grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served using grant funding, and, as appropriate, the Native American status of those victims.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a copy of our report to HHS, DHS, DOI, and DOJ for review and comment. DHS and DOI stated that they did not have any comments on our report. HHS and DOJ provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOJ also provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III.

DOJ partially agreed with our recommendations. In its comments, DOJ indicated a willingness to implement the first part of the recommendations, which is to require grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served with grant funding. However, DOJ disagreed with the second part of the recommendations, which is to require grantees to report the Native American status of those victims. As we stated in our report, OVC currently requires its grantees to report the number of human trafficking victims served through the Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS). According to DOJ, OJJDP could require grantees for its human trafficking-related grant programs to report the number of human trafficking victims served through OJJDP’s Data Collection and Technical Assistance Tool (DCTAT). Similarly, DOJ stated that OVW will begin asking grantees to include the number of sex trafficking victims served in their grantee progress reports.

However, DOJ identified several reasons why OVC, OJJDP, and OVW should not require grantees to report the Native American status of human trafficking victims served, including concerns about overburdening grantees, having a chilling effect on the delivery of services, and victim confidentiality. With respect to overburdening grantees, DOJ stated that it would be hard to justify collecting Native American status solely for victims of human trafficking and not for victims of others types of crime. Therefore, according to DOJ, implementing our recommendation would lead the components to collect demographic information for all types of victimizations, thereby greatly increasing the burden on service providers.

We believe that collecting demographic information on victims of all types of crimes could be very informative; however, our recommendation is that DOJ collect demographic data specific to its human trafficking programs, as appropriate. DOJ has identified combating human trafficking as a priority for the department, and the Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States identifies Native Americans as a vulnerable population. Therefore, we believe that collecting additional information specifically on Native American human trafficking victims is justifiable. In addition, based on preliminary results of a survey we conducted as part of a related review, it appears that some of the DOJ- and HHS-funded victim service providers do collect information on the Native American status of victims served by type of victimization. We surveyed 315 victim service providers that received funding from either DOJ or HHS in fiscal year 2015; 162 of the providers responded. Of the 162, 67 reported that they provided services to at least one human trafficking victim, and 58 were able to tell us whether any of the human trafficking victims they served were Native American; 9 were not able to tell us.

Concerning the potential chilling effect on service delivery, according to DOJ, asking victims about their race could cause confusion, fear, or make the individual less likely to engage in services. Therefore, DOJ is opposed to requiring victims to disclose their race, but acknowledged that if victims voluntarily disclose this information, grantees could include victims’ race when reporting to DOJ. Similarly, with respect to victim confidentiality, DOJ stated that collecting Native American status by type of victimization creates a much greater—and unnecessary—risk that a particular victim could be publicly identified, especially in rural tribal communities. Also, according to DOJ, OVW grantees are statutorily prohibited from reporting a victim’s personally identifying information to OVW for grant monitoring purposes. It is not our position that victims should be required to disclose their race in order to receive services, and that certainly was not the intent of our recommendation. However, we do think there are situations where it may be appropriate to ask the victim about their race. We also understand that there may be instances where reporting the Native American status of human trafficking victims could, on its own, or in conjunction with other information, identify individual victims. As we stated in our report, the components could exempt grantees from reporting Native American status on a case-by-case basis if such instances arise. To help ensure that our recommendation is not interpreted to mean that DOJ must require human trafficking victims to disclose their Native American status or that grantees must report Native American status, even if doing so significantly increases the risk that the victim could be identified, we modified our recommendation. Specifically, we clarified that agencies should require grantees to report the Native American status of human trafficking victims “as appropriate.”

DOJ identified other reasons why requiring grantees to report the Native American status of human trafficking victims was not necessary. One benefit to collecting this information that we cited in our report is that DOJ would be able to help ensure that Native American victims are receiving culturally appropriate services. However, DOJ stated that OVC and OVW already use grantee progress reports to monitor whether grantees are providing culturally appropriate services and to identify promising practices for doing so. Further, DOJ stated that it funds training and technical assistance for grantees on providing culturally appropriate services to Native Americans. We are encouraged by DOJ’s efforts related to ensuring that Native Americans are receiving culturally- appropriate services, and we think having information on which of their grantees are serving Native American victims, and how many victims there are, could enhance their efforts.

Finally, DOJ stated that the utility of the data that grantees would report on Native American status of human trafficking victims would be limited because it would not be statistically relevant. Specifically, grantee data would not identify all Native American human trafficking victims, but just those served with DOJ funding. DOJ said that efforts underway by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice would produce more meaningful data. We recognize that grantee data cannot be used to determine the prevalence of human trafficking of Native Americans nationwide. That was never the intent of the recommendation, especially considering the challenges that DOJ and others have previously identified with respect to estimating prevalence of human trafficking, in general. Rather, we recognized that the federal strategic action plan articulated a need for more information on Native American victims of human trafficking, and collecting information on the extent to which DOJ funding is being used to provide services to this population is an incremental step towards bridging this information gap.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, copies of this report will be sent to the appropriate congressional committees; the Attorney General; the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the Interior. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Department of Justice Efforts to Develop Methodologies to Determine Prevalence of Human Trafficking, and Applicability to Native American Populations

Federal agencies have several efforts under way that either assess the prevalence of human trafficking for a particular subgroup of the population or aim to develop a methodology or tool that could be used to determine prevalence, in general. From fiscal years 2012 through 2015, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Trafficking in Persons grants to San Diego State University, Abt Associates, Inc. and Northeastern University for this purpose. While none of the current efforts are designed to determine prevalence among Native Americans, specifically, grantees told us some of the methodologies could have potential to be used for such an effort.

Between 2009 and 2015, San Diego State University has been involved in three projects to determine prevalence of labor and sex trafficking for specific populations. The Labor Trafficking among Migrant Workers in North Carolina project sought to identify indicators that could be used by state and local law enforcement as signals that labor trafficking may be taking place in their communities. The goals of the study were to: (1) document the characteristics and indicators of labor trafficking, including component crimes, collateral crimes, and other community impacts; and (2) provide law enforcement with actionable knowledge to help identify labor trafficking. Researchers interviewed 380 farmworkers, who were attending migrant worker and Hispanic/Latino festivals or living at farm labor camps, and collected data on demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), citizenship and language spoken at home, unemployment and agricultural business patterns, crime, communicable disease, and pregnancy and infant mortality. According to researchers, these data allowed them to develop a comprehensive description of farmworkers who are being exploited and may be in labor trafficking situations. The study was completed in August 2013.

The second San Diego State University project, Looking for a Hidden Population: Trafficking of Migrant Laborers in San Diego County, applied respondent-driven sampling and unique access to migrant communities in San Diego County, California, to produce valid estimates on the scope of labor trafficking activities in one of the largest Spanish-speaking immigrant destinations. The study found that 30 percent of undocumented migrant laborers were victims of trafficking, 55 percent were victims of other abuses, and about half of these victimization experiences occurred within the past 12 months. The study found that the rate of trafficking violations varied markedly across business sectors that typically hire unauthorized migrant workers. The construction and janitorial services sector had the most reported trafficking violations and labor abuses across these business sectors.

The third project, Sex Trafficking in Tijuana, Mexico, involved in-depth interviews with semi-structured and open-ended questions, field observations, and conversations with major players in the prostitution business, law enforcement and advocacy groups. The main emphasis in the recruitment of participants in the project was to maximize the range and variety of the search for discernable patterns of trafficking activities and the operation of the sex industry in Tijuana. According to documentation from the study, although hundreds of interviews were conducted with a wide variety of individuals, the study does not intend to produce statistical estimates about the scope of sex trafficking activities or any other aspect of the sex industry in Tijuana. The identified cases of sex trafficking happening in Tijuana were limited to individual pimps (male and female) who were adept at seeking out women in vulnerable situations and controlling them through emotional manipulation, social isolation, and/or violence.

In 2015, NIJ also awarded a Trafficking in Persons grant to Abt Associates. The purpose of Abt’s research project, Advancing Human Trafficking Prevalence Estimation, is to develop a methodology to calculate prevalence of human trafficking. Abt has selected county-level sites to test a methodology that, if successful, could be used to estimate human trafficking at the city, state, or national level. Further, according to Abt, if targeted appropriately or conducted on a large enough scale, the methodology could be used to estimate human trafficking of Native Americans or in Indian country. Abt researcher told us they plan to use a screening tool developed by the Vera Institute of Justice to determine how many individuals who are in jails, shelters, or have recently visited emergency rooms are human trafficking victims (i.e., potentially unknown human trafficking victims). Then they plan to compare this number to the known human trafficking victims to see if this approach identifies additional victims. Abt is currently in the first year of a 3-year plan.

The Abt researcher noted that to accurately measure the prevalence of human trafficking in Indian country using a similar methodology, a study must oversample the Native American population. Based on the small sampling size being used to test the current methodology, Abt told us the current study can likely report the number of Native Americans and the number of human trafficking victims on its test sites, but would not be able to generalize results from this study to the entire Native American population.

Northeastern University’s research project, Capturing Human Trafficking Victimization through Crime Reporting is a 3-year study to test a multiple system list estimation methodology to estimate the prevalence of human trafficking in three sites, which are expected to be selected by mid- October 2016. According to the program manager, this methodology consists of comparing human trafficking reporting from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting System to the data systems of non-law enforcement entities─ welfare, victim service providers, domestic violence shelter, licensing and inspection agencies, among others. Any differences or similarities across the data would help determine whether victims are being captured in multiple areas (systems) and the results could be used to develop prevalence estimates for the tests sites. According to the program manager, if the methodology works in the test sites, the U.S. government could replicate it to estimate prevalence nationally or at other levels of government.

The coordinators of these research projects noted that there are major obstacles that hinder the estimation of human trafficking in the United States, including a lack of systematic information about the existence of victims in areas where human trafficking activities are known to exist. Abt and San Diego State University stated that even though their methodologies are not specifically designed to assess prevalence of human trafficking in Indian country or of Native Americans regardless of location, their approaches could be modified to achieve that goal. However, Abt noted that to correctly measure the prevalence of human trafficking in Indian country, a study must oversample the Native American population.

Appendix II: Allowable Uses for 50 Federal Grant Programs that Could Address Human Trafficking in Indian Country or of Native Americans

Grant Program

Awareness Department of Health and Human Services (8 Grant Programs) (41 Grant programs)

Collaboration

Collaboration

Collaboration

Collaboration

Collaboration

(1 Grant Program)

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact name above, Kristy Love, Assistant Director; Kisha Clark, Analyst-in-Charge; Jessica Ard; Paulissa Earl; Marycella Mierez; Susan Hsu; Jon Najmi; Michele Fejfar; and David Blanding made significant contributions to the work.

Related GAO Products

Human Trafficking: State Has Made Improvements in Its Annual Report but Does Not Explicitly Explain Certain Tier Rankings or Changes. GAO-17-56. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Implementation of Related Statutory Provisions, Law Enforcement Efforts, and Grant Funding. GAO-16-748T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Agencies Have Taken Steps to Assess Prevalence, Address Victim Issues, and Avoid Grant Duplication. GAO-16-555. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Actions Taken to Implement Related Statutory Provisions. GAO-16-528R. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2016.

Human Trafficking: Oversight of Contractors' Use of Foreign Workers in High-Risk Environments Needs to Be Strengthened. GAO-15-102. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2014.

Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements. GAO-07-1034. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.

Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes. GAO-07-915. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007.

Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad. GAO-06-825. Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2006.