    Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to
    Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad (18-JUL-06,
    GAO-06-825).

    Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which
    men, women, and children are bought, sold, and held against their
    will in involuntary servitude. In addition to the tremendous
    personal damage suffered by individual trafficking victims, this
    global crime has broad societal repercussions, such as fueling
    criminal networks and imposing public health costs. In 2000,
    Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to
    combat trafficking and reauthorized this act twice. This report
    reviews U.S. international antitrafficking efforts by examining
    (1) estimates of the extent of global trafficking, (2) the U.S.
    government's strategy for combating the problem abroad, and (3)
    the Department of State's process for evaluating foreign
    governments' antitrafficking efforts.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-825
        ACCNO:   A57079
      TITLE:     Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting
    Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad
         DATE:   07/18/2006
      SUBJECT:   Crime victims
    	     Crimes
    	     Data collection
    	     International cooperation
    	     International relations
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Standards
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Human trafficking

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-06-825

         * Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary and the Chairman,
           Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives
              * July 2006
         * HUMAN TRAFFICKING
              * Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S.
                Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad
         * Contents
              * Results in Brief
              * Background
              * Estimates of Global Human Trafficking Are Questionable, and U.S.
                Data Collection Efforts Are Fragmented
                   * Accuracy of Estimates in Doubt Because of Methodological
                     Weaknesses, Gaps in Data, and Numerical Discrepancies
                        * Methodological Weaknesses Cast Doubt on U.S. and
                          International Estimates
                        * U.S. Data
                        * International Data
                        * Reliable and Comparable Country Data Do Not Exist
                        * Significant Difference Exists between Numbers of
                          Estimated and Observed Victims
                   * Trafficking Data Collection in the United States Is
                     Fragmented While IOM's Is Systematic
              * Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures Prevents U.S.
                Government from Determining Overall Program Effectiveness Abroad
                   * U.S. Government Has No Overall Strategic Framework to Combat
                     Human Trafficking Abroad
                   * Coordination Efforts Focused on Avoiding Duplication Abroad,
                     Not on Leveraging Resources to Maximize Impact
                   * The U.S. Government Does Not Have a Plan to Evaluate Its
                     Overall Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad
              * Department of State's Annual Report Ranks Foreign Governments'
                Antitrafficking Efforts but Has Limited Credibility and Does Not
                Consistently Influence Antitrafficking Programs
                   * Department of State's Annual Report Assesses Foreign
                     Governments' Efforts to Eliminate Trafficking
                   * Trafficking in Persons Report Has Raised Global Awareness
                     about Human Trafficking
                   * Limitations in the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report Affect
                     Its Credibility as a Diplomatic Tool
                        * Some Countries' Inclusion in the Report Based on
                          Unreliable Data
                        * Unclear Threshold for Meeting Standard on Prescribed
                          Punishment
                        * Narratives for Highest-Ranked Countries Did Not Fully
                          Explain Their Placement
                        * Internal Process for Resolving Disagreements Lacks
                          Credibility
                   * Trafficking in Persons Report Is Not Used to Prioritize
                     Programs or Target Resources
                        * U.S. Government Lacks Mechanism to Link Its Overseas
                          Programs to Deficiencies Identified In Trafficking in
                          Persons Report
                        * Incomplete Assessments of Foreign Governments'
                          Antitrafficking Deficiencies
              * Conclusion
              * Recommendations for Executive Action
              * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
         * Methodologies Used by Four Organizations to Collect Data on Human
           Trafficking
         * Eight U.S. Government Entities' Data on Human Trafficking
         * State's Process for Assessing Foreign Governments' Compliance with
           U.S. Minimum Standards to Eliminate Human Trafficking
         * Comments from the Department of State
              * GAO Comments
         * GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

                     United States Government Accountability Office

    Report to the Chairman, Committee on

     the Judiciary and the Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of
                                    Representatives

    July 2006

    HUMAN TRAFFICKING

      Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking
                                     Efforts Abroad

                                           a

    Contents

    Letter                                                                   1
              Results in Brief                                                  2
              Background                                                        4
              Estimates of Global Human Trafficking Are Questionable, and U.S.
                           Data Collection Efforts Are Fragmented              10
                  Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures Prevents U.S.
                     Government from Determining Overall Program Effectiveness
              Abroad                                                           21
                Department of State's Annual Report Ranks Foreign Governments'
              Antitrafficking Efforts but Has Limited Credibility and Does Not
                      Consistently Influence Antitrafficking Programs          26
              Conclusion                                                       36
              Recommendations for Executive Action                             37
              Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                               38

    Appendixes
                    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology             41
                   Appendix II: Methodologies Used by Four Organizations to
                                Collect Data on Human Trafficking              44
                  Appendix III: Eight U.S. Government Entities' Data on
                                Human Trafficking                              46
                  Appendix IV:  State's Process for Assessing Foreign
                                Governments' Compliance with U.S. Minimum
                                Standards to Eliminate Human Trafficking       47
                    Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State GAO   50 60
                                Comments
                  Appendix VI:  GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments          64

    Table 1:

      Tables

    Table 2:

    Table 3: Table 4: Table 5:

    Table 6:

            Funding Obligated for International Activities to Combat
            Trafficking in Persons, Fiscal Years 2001-2005                9
            Victim Profiles in U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM
            databases                                                    12
            Reasons that Limit the Quality of Trafficking Data           15
            Four Organizations' Data Sources and Validation              44
            Four Organizations' Methodologies, Key Assumptions and
            Limitations                                                  45
            Data on Human Trafficking Maintained by U.S.
            Government Entities                                          46

    Contents

                Table 7: Minimum Standards and Criteria for the Elimination of
                         Human Trafficking                                     47
    Figures Figure 1: Principal U.S. Government Agencies with
                         Responsibilities for Antitrafficking Activities and
                         Associated Coordination Entities                       7
               Figure 2: Profile of 7,711 Trafficking Victims IOM Assisted
                         between
                         1999 and 2005                                         20
               Figure 3: Tier Definitions                                      27
               Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations for Antitrafficking
                         Activities
                         by Tier Ranking                                       34
               Figure 5: Completeness of Country Narratives for Governments in
                         Tier 2 Watch List and Tier 3                          36
               Figure 6: Key Elements of the Trafficking in Persons Report
                         Process                                               49

                                     Abbreviations

    DHS        Department of Homeland Security
    G/TIP      Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
                  in Persons
    HHS        Department of Health and Human Services
    ILO        International Labor Organization
    IOM        International Organization for Migration
    NGO        nongovernmental organization
    SPOG       Senior Policy Operating Group
    TVPA       Trafficking Victims Protection Act
    UNODC      United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
    USAID      United States Agency for International Development

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It 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.

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    July 18, 2006

    The Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman Committee on the Judiciary
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman Committee on International Relations
    House of Representatives

    Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which men, women,
    and children are bought, sold, and held against their will in slave-like
    conditions. People are trafficked and forced to work in the commercial sex
    trade, sweatshops, agricultural settings, domestic service, and other
    types of servitude. In addition to the tremendous personal damage suffered
    by individual trafficking victims, this global crime has broad societal
    repercussions. It fuels criminal networks, imposes public health costs,
    and erodes government authority. Since the mid-1990s, the United States
    has played a leading role in putting human trafficking on the
    international community's agenda. In 2000, Congress enacted the
    Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to combat trafficking in persons
    and established the President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
    Combat Trafficking in Persons (Interagency Task Force). Congress
    reauthorized this Act-in the Trafficking Victims Protection
    Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPA 2003) and the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPA 2005). This legislation
    requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress annually on foreign
    governments' compliance with minimum U.S. standards for the elimination of
    trafficking. Since 2001, the U.S. government has provided about $375
    million1 in antitrafficking assistance to foreign governments and
    nongovernmental organizations to help eliminate human trafficking.

    1This amount includes over $150 million from the Department of Labor,
    which was unable to break out funding amounts that specifically addressed
    trafficking but include funding amounts for activities that either have
    trafficking as a central focus, one component of a larger project linked
    to trafficking, or as an issue within the overall context of the project.

                                    Results in Brief

    This review is part of a larger body of work that you requested.2 To
    review the status of U.S. international efforts to combat trafficking in
    persons, we examined (1) estimates of the extent of global trafficking in
    persons, (2) the U.S. government's strategy for combating trafficking in
    persons abroad, and (3) the Department of State's (State) process for
    evaluating foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts.

    To address these objectives, we reviewed pertinent State, Justice, Labor,
    Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and U.S. Agency for
    International Development planning, funding, and program documents for
    international human trafficking. We discussed U.S. international
    trafficking efforts with officials from these departments, along with
    knowledgeable officials from international and nongovernmental
    organizations. We conducted an extensive analysis of the global
    trafficking databases developed and maintained by the U.S. government, the
    International Organization for Migration, the International Labor
    Organization, and the

    U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).3 We also analyzed the country
    narratives in State's 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report to determine how
    it assesses compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of
    trafficking, as laid out in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
    2000. We conducted our review from September 2005 to May 2006 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief

    The U.S. government estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are
    trafficked across international borders annually; however such estimates
    of global human trafficking are questionable. The accuracy of the
    estimates is in doubt because of methodological weaknesses, gaps in data,
    and numerical discrepancies. For example, the U.S. government's estimate
    was developed by one person who did not document all of his work, so the
    estimate may not be replicable, casting doubt on its reliability.
    Moreover, the quality of existing country level data varies due to limited
    availability, reliability, and comparability. There is also a considerable
    discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated victims of human

    2We have also initiated a review of U.S. efforts to investigate and
    prosecute trafficking in persons, and will soon begin a review of
    multilateral organizations' antitrafficking efforts.

    3The International Organization for Migration is a multilateral
    organization that works with migrants and governments to respond to
    migration challenges. The International Labor Organization is a United
    Nations agency that promotes human and labor rights. UNODC assists member
    states in fighting illicit drugs, crime, and terrorism.

        Page 2 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    trafficking. The U.S. government has not yet established an effective
    mechanism for estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing
    analysis of trafficking related data that resides within various
    government agencies.

    More than 5 years after the passage of the landmark antitrafficking law,
    the

    U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy to combat
    trafficking in persons abroad, as called for in a presidential directive,
    or evaluated its programs to determine whether projects are achieving the
    desired outcomes. Task forces and other coordinating mechanisms have been
    established to coordinate U.S. government efforts abroad; the focus of
    these mechanisms is to avoid duplication of effort and ensure compliance
    with U.S. government policy. However, the process does not include a
    systematic approach for agencies to clearly delineate roles and
    responsibilities in relation to each other, identify needs, and target
    ways to complement each others' activities to achieve greater results. In
    addition, the Interagency Task Force has not established performance
    measures or conducted evaluations to measure the impact of the U.S.
    government's antitrafficking programs abroad. The lack of a coordinated
    strategy and evaluation plan prevents the U.S. government from determining
    the effectiveness of its efforts to combat human trafficking abroad or to
    adjust its assistance to better meet needs.

    The Department of State annually assesses foreign governments' compliance
    with U.S. minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons, but
    State's explanations for its ranking decisions are incomplete, and the
    report is not used consistently to develop governmentwide antitrafficking
    programs. Each year since 2001, State has issued the Trafficking in
    Persons Report that ranks foreign governments into one of three
    categories, or tiers, depending on their efforts to comply with the
    minimum standards and criteria established in U.S. legislation. This
    report has increased global awareness of human trafficking, encouraged
    action by governments who failed to comply with the minimum standards, and
    raised the risk of sanctions against governments who did not make
    significant efforts to comply with these standards. However, some of the
    minimum standards are subjective, and the report does not comprehensively
    explain how they were applied, lessening the report's credibility and
    hampering its usefulness as a diplomatic tool. For example, country
    narratives for most countries in the top category (tier 1) failed to
    clearly explain compliance with the second minimum standard, regarding
    prescribed penalties for sex trafficking crimes, established in the TVPA.
    The report is also intended to

                                       Background

    serve as a guide to antitrafficking programming priorities overseas, but
    agencies do not systematically link programs with reported deficiencies.

    To improve U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking abroad, we are making
    several recommendations. To improve information on global trafficking that
    could be used to effectively target resources and programs, we are
    recommending that the Chair of the President's Interagency Task Force to
    Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons work closely with relevant
    agencies in researching a mechanism to develop a reliable global
    trafficking estimate. We are also recommending that the Chair develop and
    implement a strategy that would delineate agency roles and
    responsibilities and mechanisms for integrating activities; and determine
    priorities, measurable goals, time frames, performance measures, and a
    methodology to gauge results. Finally, to improve the credibility of
    State's annual report on trafficking in persons, we are recommending that
    the Secretary of State clearly document the rationale and support for tier
    rankings and improve the report's usefulness for antitrafficking
    programming.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, State generally agreed with our
    recommendations. In response to agencies' technical comments, we clarified
    our second recommendation to state that agencies' roles and
    responsibilities should be delineated in relation to each other,
    consistent with our report findings. The U.S. government agency that
    prepares the trafficking estimate fundamentally concurs with our
    characterization of the U.S. global estimate of trafficking flows.

    Background

    Human trafficking occurs worldwide and often involves transnational
    criminal organizations, violations of labor and immigration codes, and
    government corruption. Although their circumstances vary, fraud, force, or
    coercion typically distinguishes trafficking victims from people who are
    smuggled. Moreover, most trafficking cases follow the same pattern: people
    are abducted or recruited in the country of origin, transferred through
    transit regions, and then exploited in the destination country.4 People
    may also be trafficked internally, that is, within the borders of their
    own country. Trafficking victims include agricultural workers who are
    brought into the United States, held in crowded unsanitary conditions,
    threatened with violence if they attempt to leave, and kept under constant

    4UNODC. Trafficking in Persons Global Patterns. (April 2006).

    surveillance; child camel jockeys in Dubai who are starved to keep their
    weight down; Indonesian women who may be drawn to a domestic service job
    in another country, are not paid for their work and are without the
    resources to return home; child victims of commercial sexual exploitation
    in Thailand; and child soldiers in Uganda.

    During the 1990s, the U.S. government began drawing attention to the
    problem of human trafficking before various international forums and
    gatherings. In 1998, a presidential memorandum5 called on U.S. government
    agencies to combat the problem through prevention of trafficking, victim
    assistance and protection, and enforcement. This approach came to be known
    as "the three p's"-prevention, protection, and prosecution.

    In 2000, Congress enacted TVPA6 and reauthorized and amended the act
    twice.7 The act defines victims of severe forms of trafficking as those
    persons subject to (1) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is
    induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to
    perform such acts is under age 18 or (2) the recruitment, harboring,
    transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services,
    through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, for the purpose of
    subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
    The TVPA does not specify movement across international boundaries as a
    condition of trafficking; it does not require the transportation of
    victims from one locale to another. Under the TVPA, an alien, who is
    identified as a victim of a severe form of trafficking in the United
    States and meets additional conditions, is eligible for special benefits
    and services.

    The TVPA, as amended, provides a framework for current U.S.
    antitrafficking efforts. It addresses the prevention of trafficking,
    protection and assistance for victims of trafficking, and the prosecution
    and punishment of traffickers. The TVPA also laid out minimum standards
    for eliminating trafficking to be used in the Secretary of State's annual

    5Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the
    Administrator of the Agency for International Development, the Director of
    the United States Information Agency on "Steps to Combat Violence against
    Women and Trafficking in Women and Girls" (Mar. 11, 1998).

    6Pub. L. No. 106-386.

    7TVPA 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-193) and TVPA 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-164).

    Page 5 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    assessment of foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts. It authorized

    U.S. foreign assistance for efforts designed to meet these standards and
    established sanctions-withholding nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related
    assistance-that could be applied against governments of countries not in
    compliance with the standards and not making significant efforts to bring
    themselves into compliance.8

    Responsibility for implementing U.S. government antitrafficking efforts
    domestically and abroad is shared by the Departments of State, Justice,
    Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and the
    U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Each agency addresses
    one or more of the three prongs of the U.S. antitrafficking approach. Some
    agencies have more responsibility for implementing international
    trafficking efforts than others. Figure 1 shows agencies and task forces
    with responsibilities for antitrafficking efforts.

    8The United States is also a signatory to the United Nations Protocol to
    Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and
    Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against
    Transnational Organized Crime, G.A. res. 55/25, annex II, 55 U.N. GAOR
    Supp. (No. 49) at 60, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (Vol. I) (2001), which entered
    into force on December 25, 2003. The United States ratified the protocol
    on December 3, 2005.

    Page 6 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    The government has also created several coordinating mechanisms for these
    antitrafficking efforts, as shown in figure 1. The TVPA directed the
    President to establish the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat
    Trafficking in Persons, comprised of various agency heads and chaired by
    the Secretary of State, to coordinate the implementation of the act, among
    other activities. Furthermore, the TVPA authorized the Secretary of State
    to create the Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat
    Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking Office) to provide assistance to the
    task force. Subsequently, TVPA 2003 established the Senior Policy
    Operating Group, which addresses interagency policy, program, and planning
    issues regarding TVPA implementation. The TVPA 2003 directed the Director
    of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to serve as
    chair of the group. In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
    Prevention Act of 2004,9 passed in December 2004, established the Human
    Smuggling and Trafficking Center to be jointly run by the Departments of
    State, Justice and DHS. This center houses several agency data systems to
    collect and disseminate information to build a comprehensive picture of
    certain transnational issues, including, among other things, human
    trafficking.

    Since 2001, the U.S. government has obligated approximately $375 million
    for international projects to combat trafficking in persons. For example,
    in fiscal year 2005, the U.S. government supported more than 265
    international antitrafficking programs in about 100 countries. State,
    Labor, and USAID are the three largest providers of international
    assistance to target trafficking (see table 1).

    9Pub. L. No. 108-458.

    Table 1: Funding Obligated for International Activities to Combat
    Trafficking in Persons, Fiscal Years 2001-2005

    Dollars in millions
                                                                         Total FY
                              FY 2001 FY 2002  FY 2003  FY 2004 FY 2005 2001-2005
    Department of State     $11.47   $23.01   $28.13  $33.36 $34.41    $130.38
    U.S. Agency for
    International
    Development               6.74    10.72    15.42   27.59   21.34     81.81
    Department of Labora     20.65    32.93    48.31   18.65   38.40   158.94a
    Department of Justiceb       0        0        0   0.20b      0b     0.20b
    Department of Health
    and Human Services           0        0        0       0    2.20      2.20
    Department of Homeland
    Securityc                  N/A        0        0    0.20       0      0.20
    Total                   $38.86   $66.66   $91.86  $80.00 $96.35    $373.73

    Source: GAO analysis of data provided by State, Labor, Justice, HHS, DHS,
    and USAID.

    Note: The information represents the most current data provided
    respectively by these agencies. The annual reporting of these data may
    vary by agency based on when the funds were considered obligated.

    aThe Department of Labor was unable to break out funding amounts that
    address trafficking. Totals include obligations for activities that either
    have trafficking as a central focus, one component of a larger project
    linked to trafficking, or as an issue within the overall context of the
    project.

    bIn addition to the $200,000 in Department of Justice funding, State
    provided additional funding to the department's Office of Overseas
    Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training and International
    Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program to conduct training
    overseas. In fiscal year 2004, State provided a total of $6.5 million to
    the two programs. In fiscal year 2005, it provided $2.08 million. These
    amounts are reflected in the State total in table 1. Department of Justice
    officials stated additional funds used to carry out antitrafficking
    activities, including law enforcement activities, come from the regular
    budget and cannot be broken out.

    cAgency officials stated additional funds used to carry out
    antitrafficking activities, including law enforcement activities, come
    from the regular budget and cannot be broken out. The $200,000 reported in
    2004 was from State's Presidential Initiative funding for overseas project
    initiation.

    During an address to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2003, the
    President declared trafficking in persons a humanitarian crisis and
    announced that the U.S. government was committing $50 million to support
    organizations active in combating sex trafficking, sex tourism, and the
    rescue of women and children. In 2004, eight priority countries for the
    initiative were identified-Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Mexico,
    Moldova, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania. The initiative was centered on
    developing the capacity of each country to rescue women and children, to
    provide emergency shelters, medical treatment, rehabilitation services,
    vocational training, and reintegration services, and to conduct law
    enforcement investigations and prosecutions.

      Estimates of Global Human Trafficking Are Questionable, and U.S. Data
      Collection Efforts Are Fragmented

    Existing estimates of the scale of trafficking at the global level are
    questionable, and improvements in data collection have not yet been
    implemented. The accuracy of the estimates is in doubt because of
    methodological weaknesses, gaps in data and numerical discrepancies. For
    example, the U.S. government's estimate was developed by one person who
    did not document all of his work, so the estimate may not be replicable,
    casting doubt on its reliability. Moreover, country data are generally not
    available, reliable or comparable. There is also a considerable
    discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated victims of human
    trafficking. The U.S. government has not yet established an effective
    mechanism for estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing
    analysis of trafficking related data that resides within various
    government agencies. While trafficking data collection in the United
    States is fragmented, the database created by the International
    Organization for Migration (IOM) provides a useful systematic profile of
    victims and traffickers across countries.

    Accuracy of Estimates in Doubt Because of Methodological Weaknesses,
    Gaps in Data, and Numerical Discrepancies

    The U.S. government and three international organizations gather data on
    human trafficking, but methodological weaknesses affect the accuracy of
    their information. Efforts to develop accurate trafficking estimates are
    further frustrated by the lack of country level data. Finally, there is a
    considerable discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated
    victims of human trafficking.

    Methodological Weaknesses Cast Doubt on U.S. and International Estimates

    The U.S. government and three international organizations have gathered
    data on global human trafficking. However, these organizations face
    methodological weaknesses and institutional constraints that cast doubt on
    the accuracy of the collected data.

    The four organizations with databases on global trafficking in persons are
    the U.S. government, International Labor Organization (ILO), IOM,10 and
    UNODC. The U.S. government and ILO estimate the number of victims

    10IOM's database was funded in part by State's Trafficking Office.

    worldwide, IOM collects data on victims it assists in the countries where
    it has a presence, and UNODC traces the major international trafficking
    routes of the victims. The databases provide information on different
    aspects of human trafficking since each organization analyzes the problem
    based on its own mandate. For example, IOM looks at trafficking from a
    migration and rights point of view11 and ILO from the point of view of
    forced labor.

    Despite the fact that the databases use different methodologies for data
    collection and analysis and have various limitations, some common themes
    emerge. For example, the largest percentage of estimated victims is
    trafficked for sexual exploitation. In addition, women constitute the
    majority of estimated victims. However, the estimated percentage of
    victims that are children ranges from 13 to 50 percent. Table 2 describes
    the victim profiles that emerge from the data.

    11The database is primarily a social service and protection case
    management tool.

    Table 2: Victim Profiles in U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM databases

                            U.S. government ILOa UNODCb IOMc

    Main focus Global estimate of victims Global estimate of victims Country
    and regional Actual victims assisted by patterns of international IOM in
    26 countries trafficking

    Number of victims 600,000 to 800,000 At least 2.45 million Not available
    7,711 victims assisted people trafficked across people trafficked during
    1999 to 2005 borders in 2003d (est.) internationally and

    internally during 1995 to 2004 (est.)

    Type of exploitation Commercial sex 66% 43% 87%e 81%

    Economic or forced labor 34% 32% 28% 14%

    Mixed and other 25% 5%

    Gender and age of 80% femalef 80% femaleg 77% femaleh83% female victims
    50% minors 40% minors 9% male 15% male33% children 2% not identified 13%
    minors

    Definition of trafficking TVPA 2000 U.N. Protocol U.N. Protocol U.N.
    Protocol used

    Criteria for data Transnational trafficking Internal and transnational
    Transnational trafficking Internal and transnational collection
    trafficking trafficking

    Source: GAO analysis of U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM data.

    aFor a detailed discussion, see Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle and
    Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, ILO,
    (Geneva: April 2005).

    bFor a detailed discussion, see UNODC, Trafficking in Persons Global
    Patterns, (Vienna: April 2006). cFor a detailed discussion, see IOM, Data
    and Research on Human Trafficking: A Global Survey, (Geneva: 2005).

    dThe estimate was repeated in the 2005 and 2006 Trafficking in Persons
    Reports. eThe numbers refer to the percentage of different sources (i.e.,
    source institutions) that have reported in any of their publications a
    trafficking route, in which women, men and children have been trafficked

    for sexual exploitation or forced labor. The sum of the percentages is
    greater than 100 because one source can indicate more than one victim
    profile or form of exploitation. fWomen and girls. gWomen and girls, where
    the gender/age information is available. hWomen only.

    U.S. DataMethodological weaknesses and limitations cast doubt on the U.S.
    estimate of global trafficking flows. We identified several important
    limitations:

         o Estimate not entirely replicable. The U.S. government agency that
           prepares the trafficking estimate is part of the intelligence
           community, which makes its estimation methodology opaque and
           inaccessible. During a trafficking workshop in November 2005, the
           government agency provided a one-page overview of its methodology,
           which allowed for only a very limited peer review by the workshop
           participants. In addition, the U.S. government's methodology involves
           interpreting, classifying, and analyzing data, which was performed by
           one person who did not document all of his work. Thus the estimate may
           not be replicable, which raises doubts about its reliability.
         o Estimate based on unreliable estimates of others. The biggest
           methodological challenge in calculating an accurate number of global
           trafficking victims is how to transition from reported to unreported
           victims. The U.S. government does not directly estimate the number of
           unreported victims but relies on the estimates of others, adjusting
           them through a complex statistical process. It essentially averages
           the various aggregate estimates of reported and unreported trafficking
           victims published by NGOs, governments, and international
           organizations, estimates that themselves are not reliable or
           comparable due to different definitions, methodologies, data sources,
           and data validation procedures. Moreover, the methodologies used to
           develop these estimates are generally not published and available for
           professional scrutiny.12
         o Internal trafficking data not included. The U.S. government does not
           collect data on internal trafficking, which could be a significant
           problem in countries such as India, where forced labor is reportedly
           widespread. According to the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report, many
           nations may be overlooking internal trafficking or forms of labor
           trafficking in their national legislations. In particular, what is
           often absent is involuntary servitude, a form of severe trafficking.
           The report also noted that the TVPA specifically includes involuntary
           servitude in the U.S. definition of severe forms of trafficking.
           Nonetheless, the U.S. government estimate does not account for it,
           because it only collects data on offenses that cross national borders.

    12Because of concerns with the reliability and credibility of aggregate
    data, ILO chose not to use such data in developing its global trafficking
    estimate.

    Page 13 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    International Data

    Reliable and Comparable Country Data Do Not Exist

    o  Estimate not suitable for analysis over time. The U.S. government
    methodology provides an estimate of trafficking flows for a 1-year period
    and cannot be used to analyze trafficking over time to determine whether
    it is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Therefore, the estimate
    cannot help in targeting resources and evaluating program effectiveness.

    International Data

    Methodological weaknesses also raise questions about the accuracy of
    trafficking information from international organizations. For example,
    UNODC's methodology attempts to identify global trafficking flows across
    international borders. It tracks and totals the number of different source
    institutions that have reported a country having a trafficking incident.
    However, whether the trafficking incident involved 5 or 500 victims is
    irrelevant for UNODC's methodology. In addition, by classifying countries
    in five categories based on the frequency of reporting, UNODC might rank a
    country very high as, say, a destination country, due to the country's
    heightened public awareness, transparency and recognition of trafficking
    as a serious crime. Alternatively, ILO's methodology provides a global
    estimate of trafficking victims. However, it attempts to overcome the gap
    between reported and unreported victims using an extrapolation that is
    based on assumptions and observations that have not been rigorously tested
    and validated. Moreover, global databases are based on data sources drawn
    from reports from a limited number of countries or restricted
    geographically to specific countries. For example, IOM's data only come
    from countries where IOM has a presence, which are primarily countries of
    origin, and the organization is constrained by issues related to the
    confidentiality of victim assistance. Finally, although the three
    organizations are trying to collaborate in the area of data collection and
    research, they are having difficulty in mobilizing the necessary resources
    for their efforts. Therefore, this fragmentary approach prevents the
    development of a comprehensive and accurate view of global trafficking.

    (See app. II for additional information about the different methodologies,
    analytical assumptions, data validation, and data sources used by the
    international organizations and the U.S. government.)

    Reliable and Comparable Country Data Do Not Exist

    The quality of existing country level data varies due to limited
    availability, reliability, and comparability. Table 3 summarizes the main
    limitations of trafficking data, identified in our review of literature on
    human trafficking.

    Table 3: Reasons that Limit the Quality of Trafficking Data

    Availability             Reliability              Comparability
    1. Trafficking is an     1. Capacity for data     1. Countries and
    illegal activity and     collection and analysis  organizations define
    victims are              in
    afraid to seek help from countries of origin is   trafficking differently.
    the relevant             often inadequate.
    authorities.             2. Trafficking           2. Official statistics
                                convictions in countries do not make clear
                                of
    2. Few countries collect destination are based on distinctions among
    data on actual victims   victim testimony.        trafficking,
    on a systematic basis.   3. Estimates of          smuggling, and illegal
                                trafficking are          migration.
                                extrapolated
    3. Data collection is    from samples of reported 3. Data are often
    focused on women and     victims, which           program specific and
        children trafficked for    may not be random and focus on characteristics
    sexual exploitation, and      thus representative of victims
    other forms of           of all trafficking       pertinent to specific
    trafficking are likely   victims.                 agencies.
    to be
    underreported.

    Source: GAO analysis of reports, articles and presentations from
    international organizations, the U.S. government and academia.

    The availability of data is limited by several factors. Trafficking
    victims are a hidden population because trafficking is a clandestine
    activity, similar to illegal migration and labor exploitation. This limits
    the amount of data available on victims and makes it difficult to estimate
    the number of unreported victims. Trafficking victims are often in a
    precarious position and may be unwilling or unable to report to, or seek
    help from, relevant authorities. Moreover, HHS reported that victims live
    daily with inhumane treatment, physical and mental abuse, and threats to
    themselves or their families back home. Victims of human trafficking may
    fear or distrust the government and police because they are afraid of
    being deported or because they come from countries where law enforcement
    is corrupt and feared. In such circumstances, reporting to the police or
    seeking help elsewhere requires courage and knowledge of local conditions,
    which the victims simply might not have.

    In addition, some governments give low priority to human trafficking
    violations and do not systematically collect data on victims. In most
    countries where trafficking data are gathered, women and children are seen
    as victims of trafficking, and men are predominantly seen as migrant
    workers, reflecting a gender bias in existing information. Men are also
    perceived as victims of labor exploitation that may not be seen as a crime
    but rather as an issue for trade unions and labor regulators. Thus, data
    collection and applied research often miss the broader dimensions of
    trafficking for labor exploitation. For example, the demand for cheap
    labor, domestic service, slavery, and child labor have not been
    sufficiently investigated as factors affecting the scale of human
    trafficking.

    The reliability of existing data is also questionable. In developing
    countries, which are usually countries of origin, capacity for data
    collection and analysis is often inadequate. In countries of destination,
    human trafficking convictions are often based on victim testimony.
    Moreover, estimates of trafficking are extrapolated from samples of
    reported cases, which are not random. Therefore, it is difficult to
    determine how representative those cases are of the general population of
    all human trafficking victims and what biases have been introduced.

    Data quality is further constrained by limited data comparability.
    Countries and organizations define trafficking differently. A practice
    that is considered trafficking in one country may be considered culturally
    and historically acceptable in another country. For example, in West
    African countries, people, in particular children, commonly move within
    and across borders in search of work and are placed in homes as domestic
    servants or on farms and plantations as laborers. Due to economic
    deprivation and an abundant supply of children from poor families, a child
    may be sold by his or her parents based on promises for job training and
    good education or may be placed with a creditor as reimbursement.

    The incompatibility of definitions for data collection is exacerbated by
    the intermingling of trafficking, smuggling, and illegal migration in
    official statistics. Countries have used different definitions regarding
    the scope and means of trafficking; the activities involved, such as
    recruitment, harboring, transportation and receipt of victims; the
    purpose; the need for movement across borders; and the consent of victims.
    For example, there are discrepancies in the collection of data on sex
    trafficking. Under the TVPA, participation of children under the age of 18
    in commercial sex is a severe form of trafficking. However, some countries
    define children as people under the age of 16 and, according to U.S.
    government officials, this difference has implications for how countries
    collect data on children engaged in commercial sex.

    Finally, data are often program and institution specific and focus on the
    needs of individual agencies. Estimates may be developed for the purpose
    of advocacy. For example, some NGOs record all victims based on the first
    contact made with them regardless of whether they subsequently meet the
    criteria for receiving assistance such as legal counsel, shelter,
    financial support, or support during a trial, while others record only
    those who receive assistance. Data are also collected for operational
    purposes within criminal justice systems, and individual authorities use
    their own definitions and classifications.

    Significant Difference Exists between Numbers of Estimated and Observed
    Victims

    There is significant discrepancy between the number of estimated victims
    and the number of observed victims, which include officially reported,
    certified, registered and assisted victims. For example, the U.S.
    government estimated that the number of people trafficked into the United
    States ranged from 14,500 to 17,500 in 2003.13 Despite concerted U.S.
    government efforts to locate and protect victims, the government certified
    fewer than 900 victims in the United States during the 4  1/2 years
    between March 2001 and September 2005.14 The June 2006 Attorney General's
    Annual Report to Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat
    Trafficking in Persons for Fiscal Year 2005 indicates that the 14,500 to
    17,500 figure may be overstated because it was an early attempt to
    quantify a hidden problem. The number of certified victims may not reflect
    the total number of victims identified. For example, some alien victims
    need not seek certification because they can remain in the United States
    through family connections. The Justice Department indicates that further
    research is under way to determine a more accurate figure based on more
    advanced methodologies and a more complete understanding of the nature of
    trafficking. Similarly, the U.S. government estimated that a total of
    600,000 to 800,000 people were trafficked across transnational borders
    worldwide annually. Yet, since 1999, fewer than 8,000 victims in 26
    countries have received IOM assistance.

    Organizations may also publish estimates that incorrectly characterize the
    data reported by others. For example,15 in a 2001 report a Cambodian
    nongovernmental organization states that there were 80,000 to 100,000
    trafficked women and children nationwide. However, this statement is based
    on a report which discusses 80,000 to 100,000 sex workers in the country,
    who may or may not be trafficking victims. Moreover, the latter report
    uses two other sources that did not corroborate this estimate.

    Several factors could explain the differences between the numbers of
    observed and estimated victims, but it is unclear the extent to which any
    single factor accounts for the differences. For example, the 2005

    132004 Trafficking in Persons Report, Department of State.

    14Adult aliens are eligible for certification; victims under age 18 do not
    need to be certified to receive benefits. To be certified, the alien must
    be willing to assist law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution
    of severe forms of trafficking. Also, the alien's presence in the United
    States must be required to ensure prosecution of traffickers in persons or
    the alien must have made application for a T visa.

    15As reported in a USAID report.

        Trafficking Data Collection in the United States Is Fragmented While IOM's
        Is Systematic

    Trafficking in Persons Report cited cases in which victims reported by law
    enforcement were deported before they reached an assistance agency. In
    addition, agencies may not make sufficient efforts in identifying and
    helping victims or may have constraints imposed by certain assistance
    requirements. Victims assisted by IOM missions are those willing to go
    back to their country of origin. However, if there are other opportunities
    available in the country of destination, such as receiving a residence
    permit, victims may not be willing to accept IOM assistance. In the United
    States, one requirement of receiving official certification is that
    victims of human trafficking must be willing to assist with the
    investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases. According to an HHS
    official, this requirement may work to limit the number of recorded
    victims. Given the weaknesses in data and methods, it also cannot be
    dismissed that the estimates may overstate the magnitude of human
    trafficking.

    Trafficking Data Collection in the United States Is Fragmented While IOM’s
    Is Systematic

    The U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for
    estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of
    trafficking related data that resides within various government agencies.
    The TVPA 2005, passed in January 2006, called on the President, through
    various agencies, to conduct research into the development of an effective
    mechanism for quantifying the number of victims of trafficking on a
    national, regional, and international basis. Since 2005, the U.S.
    government has funded a project to develop a transparent methodology for
    estimating the number of men, women, and children trafficked into the
    United States for purposes of sex or labor trafficking. To date, the
    modeling has been limited to 10 countries of origin-Colombia, Venezuela,
    Ecuador, Peru, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and
    Cuba-and one arrival point in the United States-the southwest border. The
    firm developing this methodology is in the early stages of this effort and
    plans to continue to refine and test its methodology. Thus, it is too
    early to assess this methodology. The U.S. government also recently funded
    an outside contractor to improve future global trafficking estimates. To
    date, the U.S. government has funded few projects to improve estimates of
    trafficking on a regional or international basis.

    In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
    established the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center16 to serve, among

    16Pub. L. No. 108-458. The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center is a
    joint State, DHS, and Justice operation.

    Page 18 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    other responsibilities, as a clearinghouse for all relevant information
    and to convert it into tactical, operational, and strategic intelligence
    to combat trafficking in persons. The Human Smuggling and Trafficking
    Center collects trafficking information from U.S government agencies and
    sends this information to other agencies that have an interest in it for
    law enforcement purposes. Center officials stated that they receive and
    collate trafficking information from federal government agencies. However,
    officials stated that they do not systematically analyze the trafficking
    information they receive and lack the human and financial resources to do
    so. In addition, we identified eight entities within the federal
    government that possess some information related to domestic and
    international trafficking. The Justice Department alone has four different
    offices that possess domestic trafficking information. None of the federal
    agencies systematically shares their international data with the others,
    and no agency analyzes the existing data to help inform international
    program and resource allocation decisions. (See app. III for information
    on the type of trafficking data available within agencies.)

    Furthermore, based upon our analysis of agency data sets, we found that
    federal agencies do not have data collection programs that could share
    information or include common data fields. As a result, it is difficult to
    use existing agency trafficking data to compile a profile of trafficking
    victims. In previous work, we have reported that it is good practice for
    agencies to establish compatible policies, procedures, standards, and data
    systems to enable them to operate across agency boundaries.17 Although
    some information exists, agencies were unable to provide an account of the
    age, gender, type of exploitation suffered, and origin and destination of
    trafficking victims into the United States. Moreover, some agencies with
    law enforcement missions were generally unwilling to share demographic
    trafficking data with us and would release statistics for law enforcement
    purposes only. The U.S. National Central Bureau was able to extract
    limited profile information from its case management system.

    While the information on trafficking victims collected by U.S. agencies is
    fragmented, the database created by IOM allows for the development of a
    useful, in-depth profile of traffickers and their victims across 26
    countries. Although IOM's data are limited to countries where IOM provides
    direct assistance to trafficking victims, has a short history of about 7
    years, and

    17GAO, Results-oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and
    Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.:
    Oct. 21, 2005).

    Page 19 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    may not be easily generalizable, it is the only one of the four databases
    that contains data directly obtained from victims. Drawing from more than
    7,000 cases, it includes information about the victims' socioeconomic
    profile, movement, exploitation, abuse, and duration of trafficking.
    Moreover, the database tracks victims from the time they first requested
    IOM assistance, through their receipt of assistance, to their subsequent
    return home. Importantly, it also tracks whether victims were subsequently
    retrafficked. These factors provide information that could assist U.S.
    efforts to compile better data on trafficking victims.

    As shown in figure 2, the victims IOM assisted often were enticed by
    traffickers' promise of a job, most believed they would be working in
    various legitimate professions, and were subjected to physical violence.

      Figure 2: Profile of 7,711 Trafficking Victims IOM Assisted between 1999 and
                                          2005

    Source: GAO analysis of IOM data.

    Note: All estimates are a result of GAO analysis of IOM data and are based
    on cases with available data.

    aIOM's policy is to use the term "prostitute" rather than "sex worker"
    although the latter is used in their database.

    In addition, based on cases with available data on the duration of the
    trafficking episode, the average duration of stay in the destination
    country before seeking help from IOM is more than 2 years. Most of the
    sexual exploitation victims worked 7 days a week and retained a small
    fraction of their earnings. Moreover, about 54 percent of the victims paid
    a debt to the recruiter, transporter and/or other exploiters, and about 52
    percent knew they were sold to other traffickers at some stage of the
    trafficking process.

      Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures Prevents U.S. Government from
      Determining Overall Program Effectiveness Abroad

    U.S. Government Has No Overall Strategic Framework to Combat Human
    Trafficking Abroad

    The database also contains information about the recruiters' and
    traffickers' networks, nationality, and relationship to victims. It thus
    provides insights into the traffickers and the mechanisms traffickers used
    to identify and manipulate their victims. For example, in 77 percent of
    the cases, contact with the recruiter was initiated based on a personal
    relationship. Moreover, the correlation between the nationality of the
    recruiter and that of the victim was very high (0.92). Trafficking
    networks may have a complex organization, with the recruiter being only
    one part of the whole system. The organization may involve investors,
    transporters, corrupt public officials, informers, guides, debt
    collectors, and money launderers. The extent of information on victims and
    traffickers in the database improves the overall understanding of the
    broader dimensions of trafficking.

    Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures  Prevents U.S.Government from
    Determining Overall Program Effectiveness Abroad

    While federal agencies have undertaken activities to combat trafficking in
    persons, the U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy to
    combat human trafficking abroad, as called for in a presidential
    directive. The U.S. government has established an interagency task force
    and working group on human trafficking, which have focused on complying
    with U.S. policy on prostitution and avoiding duplication of effort, but
    they have not focused on developing and implementing a systematic way for
    agencies to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to
    each other, and identify targets of greatest need and leverage overseas
    activities to achieve greater results. In addition, governmentwide task
    forces have not developed measurable goals and associated indicators to
    evaluate the overall effectiveness of efforts to combat trafficking abroad
    or outlined an evaluation plan to gauge results, making the U.S.
    government unable to determine the effectiveness of its efforts abroad or
    to adjust its assistance to better meet needs.

    U.S. Government Has No Overall Strategic Framework to Combat
    Human Trafficking Abroad

    Although the U.S. government established an interagency task force and
    working group in 2002 to coordinate U.S. agencies' antitrafficking
    activities,18 as required by legislation, it has not developed a
    coordinated strategy to combat trafficking in persons abroad, as called
    for by a

    18The working group was first established as the Senior Policy Advisory
    Group in 2002, according to the Department of State, and became the Senior
    Policy Operating Group as mandated in TVPA 2003.

    Page 21 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    presidential directive.19 The directive further stated that strong
    coordination among agencies working on domestic and foreign policy is
    crucial and that departments and agencies shall coordinate U.S. foreign
    assistance programs to combat trafficking in persons. In addition, our
    previous work on issues that are national in scope and cut across agency
    jurisdictions has shown that a strategic framework can be useful in
    guiding agency resource and policy decisions.20 Furthermore, our previous
    work has shown that lack of a coordinated strategy creates the risk of
    overlap and fragmentation that may result in wasting scarce funds and
    limiting program effectiveness.21

    Despite the presidential directive that requires the Senior Policy
    Operating Group (the Group) to develop a coordinated strategy to combat
    human trafficking, agency officials acknowledged that there is no
    coordinated government strategy for efforts abroad. One senior agency
    official stated that her agency uses the three-pronged approach of
    prevention, protection, and prosecution as guidance. However, officials
    agreed that a strategic plan could help improve understanding and
    coordination among agencies. In addition, of the six government agencies
    that conduct antitrafficking programs abroad, only two-State's Trafficking
    Office and USAID-provided us with strategy-type documents that
    specifically addressed trafficking abroad and included a majority of the
    characteristics that we have identified in previous work as necessary to
    implement a national strategy. Both agencies' documents, at least
    partially, address the six characteristics we identified. However, neither
    agency's documents clarified roles in relation to other agencies or
    established clear and strategic performance measures to gauge results and
    evaluate effectiveness.

    19National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 22, signed on December
    16, 2002.

    20We identified six desirable characteristics to include in a national
    strategy: (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and
    risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and
    performance measures; (4) resources, investments, and risk management; (5)
    organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6)
    integration and implementation. See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation
    of Selected Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism,
    GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004), and Prescription Drugs:
    Strategic Framework Would Promote Accountability and Enhance Efforts to
    Enforce the Prohibitions on Personal Importation, GAO-05-372 (Washington,
    D.C.: Sept. 8, 2005).

    21 GAO-04-408T.

    Coordination Efforts Focused on Avoiding Duplication Abroad, Not on
    Leveraging Resources to Maximize Impact

    As required by TVPA 2003, the U.S. government has established the Group
    to coordinate the activities of federal agencies regarding policies involving
    international human trafficking; but, although the coordination efforts have
                                        focused on compliance with U.S. policy on
                                        prostitution and avoiding duplication of
                                        effort, the efforts do not include a
                                        focus on developing and
                                        implementing a systematic way for
                                        agencies to clearly delineate roles and
                                        responsibilities in relation to each
                                        other and to identify targets of greatest
                                        need and leverage activities to achieve
                                        greater results. The presidential
                                        directive calls on agencies to work
                                        together through the Group to address
                                        coordination, sharing of information, and
                                        marshalling of law enforcement
                                        resources.
                                        According to participating agency
                                        officials, the Group-through the work
                                        of its various subcommittees-served as a
                                        forum for agency officials to
                                        discuss trafficking policy and programs.
                                        The Group also instituted a grants
                                        funding notification system that requires
                                        agencies to notify members about
                                        each antitrafficking grant program that
                                        an agency is considering awarding.
                                        According to the Group's guidance,
                                        agencies can offer comments on
                                        potential duplication, partnership
                                        opportunities, and whether a proposed
                                        project or grantees comply with the U.S.
                                        government policy on prostitution.22
                                        Information provided to the Group for
                                        notification includes
                                        the name of the recipient, location,
                                        short description of the project, and the
                                        proposed amount. Members can comment on a
                                        grant, but they do not
                                        provide approval; the awarding agency
                                        makes the final decision about
                                        whether to award the grant. According to
                                        agency officials, the formal
                                        notification process takes place after
                                        the awarding agency has held its own
                                        grants panel and has chosen its final
                                        grants, making it too late for other
                                        agencies' comments to have a significant
                                        impact on the grant.
                                        According to officials knowledgeable with
                                        the Group's actions, it has not
                                        developed or implemented a systematic way
                                        for agencies to identify

    22The TVPA 2003 added the provision that no funds made available to carry
    out the TVPA as amended may be used to promote, support, or advocate the
    legalization or practice of prostitution. In addition, no funds made
    available to carry out the TVPA, as amended, may be used to implement any
    program that targets victims of severe forms of trafficking through any
    organization that has not stated in a grant application or agreement that
    it does not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of
    prostitution. National Security Presidential Directive 22, signed on
    December 16, 2002, states that U.S. policy opposes prostitution and
    prostitution-related activities, such as pimping, pandering, or
    maintaining brothels, as contributing to the phenomenon of trafficking in
    persons. The U.S. government's position is that these activities should
    not be regulated as a legitimate form of work for any human being.

    priorities and target efforts abroad to complement each others' activities
    to achieve greater results than if the agencies were acting alone.23 The
    presidential directive required agencies to submit plans to implement the
    provisions in the directive. Agencies submitted these plans. Our review of
    these plans found that, for the most part, they provide information
    summarizing ongoing activities, but officials from several agencies were
    unable to explain if, or to what extent, they used them to target
    resources and coordinate activities. One Trafficking Office official
    stated that the office never used its implementation plan; however, the
    official further stated that the office is in the process of updating it
    to make it more applicable.

        The U.S. Government Does Not Have a Plan to Evaluate Its Overall
        Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad

    Despite the mandate to evaluate progress, the Interagency Task Force has
    not developed a plan to evaluate overall U.S. government efforts to combat
    trafficking abroad. In TVPA 2000, Congress called upon the Interagency
    Task Force to measure and evaluate the progress of the United States and
    other countries in preventing trafficking, protecting and providing
    assistance to victims, and prosecuting traffickers. However, the Task
    Force has not developed an evaluation plan or established governmentwide
    performance measures against which the U.S. government can evaluate the
    overall impact of its international antitrafficking efforts.24 In previous
    work, we have reported that monitoring and evaluating efforts can help key
    decision makers within agencies, as well as clients and stakeholders,
    identify areas for improvement.25 Further, in its 2005 annual assessment
    of

    U.S. government activities to combat human trafficking, the Department of
    Justice recommended that the U.S. government begin measuring the impact of
    its antitrafficking activities. Although the project-level documentation
    that we reviewed from agencies, such as USAID and the Department of Labor,
    included measures to track activities on specific projects, officials
    stated that USAID's agency-level aggregate indicators are intended as a
    way of communicating agency outputs, not as a means of

    23In previous work, we broadly defined collaboration as any joint activity
    intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the
    organizations act alone. GAO-06-15 .

    24In previous work on desirable characteristics of a national strategy, we
    have found that identifying priorities, milestones, and performance
    measures, usually developed in conjunction with a strategic framework, can
    help agencies achieve results, and enable more effective oversight and
    accountability. See GAO-04-408T.

    25 GAO-06-15.

    evaluating the effectiveness of programs. In addition, according to the
    2005 State Department Inspector General report, State's Trafficking Office
    needs to better identify relevant, objective, and clear performance
    indicators to compare progress in combating trafficking from year to year.
    Officials from State's Trafficking Office recognized the need to establish
    mechanisms to evaluate grant effectiveness. However, officials stated that
    the office lacks the personnel to monitor and evaluate programs in the
    field and that it relies on U.S. embassy personnel to assist in project
    monitoring. In early 2006, the Trafficking Office adopted a monitoring and
    evaluation tool to assist embassy personnel in monitoring its
    antitrafficking programs, but it is too soon to assess its impact.

    Our review of the Department of State documentation and discussions with
    agency officials found little evidence of the impact of various
    antitrafficking efforts. For example, the 2005 Trafficking in Persons
    Report asserts that legalized or tolerated prostitution nearly always
    increases the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex
    slavery, but does not cite any supporting evidence. However, apart from a
    2005 European Parliament sponsored study26 on the link between national
    legislation on prostitution and the trafficking of women and children, we
    found few studies that comprehensively addressed this issue. In addition,
    the State Inspector General report noted that some embassies and academics
    questioned the credentials of the organizations and findings of the
    research that the Trafficking Office funded. The Inspector General
    recommended that the Trafficking Office submit research proposals and
    reports to a rigorous peer review to improve oversight of research
    efforts. In addition, according to agency officials in Washington, D.C.
    and in the field, there is little or no evidence to indicate the extent to
    which different types of efforts-such as prosecuting traffickers,
    abolishing prostitution, increasing viable economic opportunities, or
    sheltering and reintegrating victims-impact the level of trafficking or
    the extent to which rescued victims are being retrafficked.

    26The study concluded that a country's legal position on prostitution was
    not the only factor that influences the number of women and children
    trafficked for sexual exploitation and that a final evaluation of the
    legislative model and the impact on the number of victims should be based
    on a wider, more reliable and comparable set of data. Transcrime, Study on
    National Legislation on Prostitution and the Trafficking in Women and
    Children, a report prepared for the European Parliament, August 2005.

    Page 25 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

      Department of State's Annual Report Ranks Foreign Governments' Antitrafficking
      Efforts but Has Limited Credibility and Does Not Consistently Influence
      Antitrafficking Programs

    As required by the TVPA, the Department of State issues an annual report
    that analyzes and ranks foreign governments' compliance with minimum
    standards to eliminate trafficking in persons. This report has increased
    global awareness about trafficking in persons, encouraged action by some
    governments who failed to comply with the minimum standards, and raised
    the threat of sanctions against governments who did not make significant
    efforts to comply with these standards. The Department of State includes
    explanations of the rankings in the report, though they are not required
    under the TVPA. However, the report's explanations for these ranking
    decisions are incomplete, and agencies do not consistently use the report
    to influence antitrafficking programs. Information about whether a country
    has a significant number of trafficking victims may be unavailable or
    unreliable, making the justification for some countries' inclusion in the
    report debatable. Moreover, in justifying the tier rankings for these
    countries, State does not comprehensively describe foreign governments'
    compliance with the standards, many of which are subjective. This lessens
    the report's credibility and hampers its usefulness as a diplomatic tool.
    In addition, incomplete country narratives reduce the report's utility as
    a guide to help focus U.S. government resources on antitrafficking
    programming priorities.

        Department of State's Annual Report Assesses Foreign Governments' Efforts to
        Eliminate Trafficking

    Each year since 2001, State has published the congressionally mandated
    Trafficking in Persons Report, ranking countries into a category, or tier,
    based on the Secretary of State's assessment of foreign governments'
    compliance with four minimum standards for eliminating human trafficking,
    as established in the TVPA. These standards reflect the U.S. government's
    antitrafficking strategy of prosecuting traffickers, protecting victims,
    and preventing trafficking. The first three standards deal with countries'
    efforts to prohibit severe forms of trafficking and prescribe penalties
    for trafficking crimes, while the fourth standard relates to government
    efforts to eliminate trafficking.27 The TVPA instructed the Secretary of
    State to place countries that are origin, transit, or destination
    countries for a significant number of victims of severe forms of
    trafficking in one of three tiers. In 2003, State added a fourth category,
    the tier 2 watch

    27The fourth standard provides 10 indicia that can be used to assess these
    efforts. According to the Trafficking Office, it focuses on 5 of the 10 as
    core criteria: (1) prosecution of traffickers, (2) prosecution of corrupt
    government officials who contribute to trafficking,

    (3) protection of victims, (4) prevention of trafficking, and (5)
    demonstrated progress in combating trafficking from year to year (see app.
    IV).

    Page 26 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    list, consisting of tier 2 countries that require special scrutiny in the
    coming year (see fig. 3). Governments of countries placed in tier 3 may be
    subject to sanctions by the United States.

                               Figure 3: Tier Definitions

    Source: 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report.

    In addition to the rankings, each Trafficking in Persons Report contains
    country narratives intended to provide the basis for each country's tier
    placement. Although the narratives are not required by the TVPA, they
    state the scope and nature of the trafficking problem, explain the reasons
    for the country's inclusion in the report, and describe the government's
    efforts to combat trafficking and comply with the minimum standards contained
    in U.S. legislation. For countries placed in the lowest two tiers,
    State develops country action plans to help guide governments
    in improving their antitrafficking efforts.

    Page 27 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

        Trafficking in Persons Report Has Raised Global Awareness about Human
        Trafficking

    The Trafficking in Persons Report has raised global awareness about human
                    trafficking and spurred some governments that had failed to
                    comply with the minimum standards to adopt antitrafficking
                    measures. According to U.S. government and international
                    organization officials and representatives of trafficking
                    victim advocacy groups, this is due to the combination of a
                    public assessment of foreign governments' antitrafficking
                    efforts and potential economic consequences for those that
                    fail to meet minimum standards and do not make an effort to
                    do so.

    U.S.
               government officials cited a number of cases in which foreign
               governments improved their antitrafficking efforts in response to
               their tier placements. For example, State and USAID officials
               cited the case of Jamaica, a source country for child trafficking
               into the sex trade, which was placed on tier 3 in the 2005 report.
               The country narrative noted deficiencies in Jamaica's
               antitrafficking measures and reported that the government was not
               making significant efforts to comply with the minimum standards.
               Jamaica failed to investigate, prosecute, or convict any
               traffickers during the previous year, despite the passage of a law
               to protect minors. In response, the Jamaican government created an
               antitrafficking unit within its police force and conducted raids
               that led to nine trafficking-related arrests.

    In addition, the 2004 report placed Japan on the tier 2 watch list, and
    the country narrative noted that Japan is a destination country for large
    numbers of foreign women and children who are trafficked for sexual
    exploitation. It highlighted weaknesses in Japan's law enforcement
    efforts. For example, the lack of scrutiny of Japan's entertainer visas
    reportedly allowed traffickers to use them to bring victims into the
    country. The country narrative also mentioned Japan's failure to comply
    with minimum standards for protecting victims, deporting foreign
    trafficking victims as undocumented aliens who had committed a crime by
    entering the country illegally. According to State officials and the 2005
    report, the Japanese government responded to the report's criticisms by
    tightening the issuance of entertainer visas and ceasing the criminal
    treatment of trafficking victims.

        Limitations in the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report Affect Its Credibility
        as a Diplomatic Tool

    Governments of countries placed on tier 3 that do not implement the
    recommendations in the country action plan may be subject to sanctions or
    other penalties. The United States, for example, may oppose assistance for
    the country from international financial institutions such as the
    International Monetary Fund.28 Since 2003, full or partial sanctions have
    been applied to eight countries,29 most of which were already under
    sanctions from the United States.

    Some Countries' Inclusion in the Report Based on Unreliable Data

    According to the presidential directive and the 2005 Trafficking in
    Persons Report, the annual report is intended as a tool to help the United
    States engage foreign governments in fighting human trafficking. According
    to U.S. government officials, the report's effectiveness as a diplomatic
    tool for discussing human trafficking with foreign governments depends on
    its credibility. The country narratives used as the basis for ranking
    decisions should provide clear and comprehensive assessments of foreign
    governments' antitrafficking efforts and demonstrate consistent
    application of the standards. Our analysis of the 2005 report found
    limitations in the country narratives, and State officials in the Regional
    Bureaus expressed concerns that these limitations detract from the
    report's credibility and usefulness. These include some countries'
    inclusion in the report based on unreliable data, incomplete explanations
    of compliance with the minimum standards by some of the highest-ranked
    countries, and country narratives that did not clearly indicate how
    governments complied with certain standards and criteria. We also found
    criticisms of the process for resolving disputes about country inclusion
    and tier rankings.

    The TVPA requires State to rank the antitrafficking efforts of governments
    of countries that are sources, transit points, or destinations for a
    "significant number" of victims of severe forms of trafficking. Since
    2001,

    28In 2001, we assessed whether the Treasury Department was able to
    influence operations at the International Monetary Fund (Fund) in a
    direction that would be consistent with U.S. policies. We found that it
    was difficult to attribute Fund operations to any one member because the
    Fund generally operates on a consensus decision-making basis. GAO,
    International Monetary Fund: Efforts to Advance U.S. Policies at the Fund,
    GAO-01-214 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2001).

    29In 2003, the President decided to impose full sanctions on Burma, Cuba,
    and North Korea and partial sanctions on Liberia and Sudan. In 2004, full
    sanctions were again imposed on Burma, Cuba, and North Korea and partial
    sanctions on Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, and Venezuela. In 2005, full
    sanctions were imposed on Burma, Cuba, and North Korea and partial
    sanctions on Cambodia and Venezuela.

    State has used a threshold of 100 victims to determine whether or not to
    include a country in the Trafficking in Persons Report.30 However, as
    discussed earlier in this report, reliable estimates of the number of
    trafficking victims are generally not available. For example, according to
    State officials, one country was included in the report because a junior
    political officer stated that at least 300 trafficking victims were in the
    country and that the government's efforts to combat trafficking should be
    assessed. According to these officials, this statement was based on the
    political officer's informal survey of brothels in that country. Since
    then, other embassy officials, including the ambassador, have argued that
    the country does not have a significant number of victims, but it
    continues to appear in the report. In addition, State officials cited
    Estonia as a country that was included in the report based on an IOM
    official's informal estimate of more than 100 victims. State officials
    said that a subsequent embassy-funded study of trafficking in Estonia
    found that the country had around 100 confirmed victims in a 4-year
    period, but internal discussions have not led to the removal of Estonia
    from the Trafficking in Persons Report. However, the country narrative for
    Estonia in the 2005 report was modified from previous years to state that
    Estonia is a source and transit country for a "small number" of
    trafficking victims.

    Our review of country narratives in the 2005 report revealed some cases in
    which it was not clear how the situations used to justify the country's
    inclusion in the report constituted severe forms of trafficking under U.S.
    law. For example, the country narratives for Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and
    Singapore described cases in which human smugglers abandoned people,
    domestic workers were abused by their employers, and foreign women engaged
    in prostitution. The narratives either did not clearly establish whether
    the situation involved victims of severe forms of trafficking or failed to
    provide enough information about the magnitude of the problem to convey
    the sense that the number of victims had reached 100 people. According to
    State officials, inclusion of human rights abuses or labor issues in the
    description of foreign countries' human trafficking problem can damage the
    report's credibility with foreign governments. Some State officials have
    suggested abandoning the threshold of 100 victims and including all
    countries in the report.

    30The threshold of 100 victims is not legislatively mandated.

                          Page 31 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    Unclear Threshold for Meeting Standard on Prescribed Punishment

    Our analysis of the 2005 report found that
    many narratives did not clearly state
    whether and how the government met the minimum standard
    regarding stringency of punishment for
                                       severe forms of trafficking (see
                                       app. I for a description of the
                                       methodology used to analyze the 2005
                                       report). This standard requires that
                                       prescribed penalties for severe forms
                                       of trafficking be sufficiently stringent
                                       to deter such trafficking and that they
                                       reflect the heinous nature of the offense.
                                       The Trafficking Office has not
                                       defined a threshold for what constitutes
                                       "sufficiently stringent"
                                       punishment. Our analysis showed that in
                                       over one-third of cases, the 2005
                                       report's country narratives did not
                                       characterize the prescribed penalties as
                                       sufficiently stringent. Moreover, in many
                                       cases the narratives do not state
                                       whether or not the government met this
                                       minimum standard. State officials
                                       agreed that this subjectivity makes it
                                       difficult for reports staff and foreign
                                       governments to know what constitutes
                                       compliance, negatively affecting
                                       the report's credibility and utility as a
                                       diplomatic tool.

    Narratives for Highest-Ranked Countries Did Not Fully Explain Their Placement

    Our analysis of the 2005 report found that
    many country narratives do not provide a comprehensive assessment of foreign
    governments' compliance with the minimum
    standards, resulting in incomplete
    explanations for tier
                                       placements. Although the 2005 report
                                       discusses the importance of
                                       imposing strict penalties on traffickers,
                                       we found that only 2 of the 24 tier 1
                                       country narratives clearly explained
                                       compliance with the second minimum
                                       standard established in the TVPA, which,
                                       among other things, calls for
                                       governments to prescribe punishment for
                                       sex trafficking that is
                                       commensurate with that for grave crimes
                                       such as forcible sexual assault.
                                       The narratives for 17 (71 percent) of the
                                       tier 1 countries provided
                                       information on penalties for sex
                                       trafficking but did not compare these with
                                       the governments' penalties for other grave
                                       crimes. Five (21 percent) tier 1
                                       countries did not mention whether the
                                       governments complied with this
                                       standard at all.
                                       Our analysis of the tier 1 country
                                       narratives in the 2005 report also showed
                                       that, while most explained how these
                                       governments fully met the core
                                       criteria for the fourth minimum standard,
                                       related to government efforts to
                                       eliminate severe forms of trafficking,
                                       some did not. A senior official at the
                                       Trafficking Office confirmed this finding.
                                       We found that country narratives
                                       for 11 (46 percent) of the 24 tier 1
                                       countries raised concerns about the
                                       governments' compliance with key parts of
                                       core criteria used to determine
                                       if the government is making a serious and
                                       sustained effort to eliminate
                                       severe forms of trafficking. However, the
                                       narratives failed to explain
                                       whether and how the governments' success
                                       in meeting the other core

    Internal Process for Resolving Disagreements Lacks Credibility

    criteria outweighed these deficiencies and justified their placement in
    tier

    1.

    For example, the 2005 report described France, a tier 1 country, as a
    destination for thousands of trafficked women and children. Although the
    report states that the French government fully complied with the minimum
    standards, our analysis of the narrative found that the first three
    standards were not mentioned. Furthermore, the narrative also discussed
    the French government's failure to comply with the criterion on protecting
    trafficking victims, one of the key objectives of U.S. antitrafficking
    legislation. The narrative discusses a French law, which harmed
    trafficking victims by arresting, jailing, and fining them. Senior
    officials at the Trafficking Office are concerned about France's lack of
    compliance with the victim protection criterion. The narrative, however,
    did not balance the discussion of these deficiencies by explaining how the
    government's compliance with the other core criteria allowed it to meet
    the fourth minimum standard and thus be placed in tier 1.

    Similarly, the country narratives for two tier 1 countries stated that the
    governments were not taking steps to combat official corruption, which the
    2004 report highlights as a major impediment to antitrafficking efforts.
    For example, the narrative for Nepal, a source country for women and
    children trafficked to India and the Middle East, states that the
    government fully complied with the minimum standards. However, the
    narrative noted that the government has not taken action against
    immigration officials, police and judges suspected of benefiting from
    trafficking-related graft and corruption, and it did not explain how the
    deficiency in this core criteria was outweighed by Nepal's efforts with
    other core criteria.

    Internal Process for Resolving Disagreements Lacks Credibility

    According to State officials, there are a considerable number of
    disagreements within State about the initial tier placements proposed by
    the Trafficking Office. These disagreements are not surprising, given that
    the Trafficking Office focuses exclusively on antitrafficking efforts
    while the Regional Bureaus manage bilateral relations, which comprise a
    wide range of issues. However, it is important that the process for
    resolving these conflicts be credible. Some disagreements on tier rankings
    are resolved in meetings between the Trafficking Office and the Deputy
    Assistant Secretaries of the Regional Bureaus, but most are elevated to
    the undersecretary level. A few disagreements are even referred to the
    Secretary of State for resolution. According to State officials, some
    disputes are worked out by clarifying misunderstandings or providing
    additional information. Although Trafficking Office staff said that these
    discussions are constructive, staff in State's Regional Bureaus said that
    many disagreements over tier rankings are resolved by a process of
    "horsetrading," whereby the Trafficking Office agrees to raise some
    countries' tier rankings in exchange for lowering others. In these cases,
    political considerations may take precedence over a neutral assessment of
    foreign governments' compliance with minimum standards to combat
    trafficking. Senior officials at the Trafficking Office acknowledged that
    political considerations sometimes come into play when making the tier
    ranking decisions.

        Trafficking in Persons Report Is Not Used to Prioritize Programs or Target
        Resources

    The Trafficking Office's implementation plan and the 2005 Trafficking in
    Persons Report states that the report should be used as a guide to target
    resources to prosecution, protection, and prevention programs. However, we
    found that U.S. government agencies do not systematically link the
    programs they fund to combat trafficking overseas with the tier rankings
    or the deficiencies that are identified in the report's country
    narratives. For example, U.S. agencies did not use the report when they
    selected high-priority countries to participate in the 2-year $50 million
    Presidential Initiative to Combat Trafficking in Persons. Moreover, we
    found that many of the country narratives describing deficiencies in
    foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts were incomplete, making it
    difficult to use them to guide programming.

    U.S. Government Lacks Mechanism to Link Its Overseas Programs to
    Deficiencies Identified In Trafficking in Persons Report

    Officials from State's Trafficking Office acknowledged that the management
    processes and staff responsible for producing the report are not linked
    with those managing overseas assistance programs. State's Inspector
    General reported in November 2005 that the lack of synchronization between
    the Trafficking Office's grants cycle (January and February) and reporting
    cycle (June) makes it difficult to address the shortcomings identified in
    the report and the countries' programming needs. In addition, most of the
    State requests for grant proposals that we reviewed were generic in scope
    and were not tailored to address a specific problem or priority. For
    example, one request for proposal was directed broadly at prevention and
    protection programs in Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America. In
    addition, officials from State's regional bureaus said that most of their
    requests for grant proposals are sent to all the embassies in their region
    and are not targeted to those countries on lower tiers. However, officials
    from one regional bureau stated that they sent a request for grant
    proposals dealing with law enforcement issues only to those countries on
    the tier 2 watch list to ensure the programs were targeted where they were
    most needed.

    The presidential directive stated that agencies are to develop a consensus
    on the highest priority countries to receive antitrafficking assistance
    through interagency consultation and in consultation with U.S. missions
    overseas. The Trafficking Office's implementation plan called for using
    the annual Trafficking in Persons Report as a guide to target assistance,
    with priority to countries ranked in the lowest tiers and assistance to
    only those tier 1 and 2 countries with limited resources and whose
    governments showed a clear commitment to combat trafficking. In fiscal
    year 2005, the

    U.S. government obligated about $96 million to support more than 265
    international antitrafficking programs in about 100 countries. Only
    one-fourth of this money went to countries ranked in the lowest two tiers
    (see fig. 4).

    Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations for Antitrafficking Activities by
    Tier Ranking

    Other Tier 3Tier 1

    Tier 2 watch list

    Tier 2

    Source: GAO analysis.

    Note: The "other" category refers to obligations directed to multicountry
    or regional programs that cannot be categorized by tier placement.

    Through the Senior Policy Operating Group, in January 2004 agencies
    selected eight countries to target their efforts for the presidential
    initiative to combat trafficking in persons; however, documentation of the
    decision-making process does not mention use of the Trafficking in

    Persons Report's tier rankings or country narratives to affect this
    selection. Officials from the Trafficking Office and the documents we
    reviewed stated that the Group selected countries based on several
    factors, including anticipated host government commitment and the ability
    to start implementation in a short time frame. The eight countries
    selected were ranked in tier 2 in the 2003 Trafficking in Persons Report,
    suggesting that their governments showed some commitment to combating
    trafficking by making efforts to comply with the minimum standards and
    criteria outlined in the TVPA. However, it was not clear how the Group
    applied the criteria in selecting the countries. For example, host
    government commitment to combat trafficking did not necessarily translate
    into a willingness to receive U.S. assistance. The Department of State
    cables indicate that the governments in Brazil and India did not support
    U.S. efforts to fund antitrafficking programs under the presidential
    initiative. In addition, despite an emphasis on selecting countries in
    which the United States could start implementation in a short time frame,
    agreements necessary to conduct law enforcement projects were not in place
    in Brazil and Mexico, causing these initiatives to be delayed. Also,
    according to an agency official and documents we reviewed, Tanzania was
    included because a senior official had just traveled there and thought
    trafficking might be a problem.

    Incomplete Assessments of Foreign Governments' Antitrafficking
    Deficiencies

    The country narratives' incomplete assessments of deficiencies in foreign
    governments' efforts to combat trafficking diminish the Trafficking in
    Persons Report's utility as a programming guide. Our analysis of the 2005
    report found that many country narratives failed to include information on
    the governments' compliance with some standards and core criteria, making
    it difficult for U.S. government officials to use the report as a
    programming guide. For example, all narratives for countries in the lowest
    two tiers contained some discussion of government efforts to protect
    trafficking victims. However, we found that 80 percent failed to mention
    key aspects of the victim protection criterion, including whether victims
    were encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement, whether the government
    provided legal alternatives to deportation, and whether victims were
    protected from inappropriate treatment as criminals (see fig. 5). In
    addition, 92 percent of country narratives for tier 2 countries, which
    receive the largest share of U.S. government antitrafficking funds, did
    not mention compliance with certain standards and criteria.31

    31Our finding that 92 percent of tier 2 narratives did not mention
    compliance with certain standards and criteria is based on a random
    probability sample and is surrounded by a 95 percent confidence interval
    that extends from 82 percent to 95 percent.

    Page 35 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    Figure 5: Completeness of Country Narratives for Governments in Tier 2
    Watch List

    and Tier 3 Percentage of narratives

    100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

    0 Tier 2 watchlist and tier 3 country narratives that do not mention
    whether governments:

    Combat official trafficking-related corruption Prescribe sufficiently
    stringent punishment for trafficking crimesAdopt key victim protection
    measuresSource: GAO analysis.

      Conclusion

    The United States has placed trafficking on the international agenda and
    has spurred governments and organizations into action through its funding
    of international programs and the publication of the annual Trafficking in
    Persons Report. Additionally, the development of a victim-centered
    approach based upon prevention, protection, and prosecution programs has
    provided an operational framework for both governments and practitioners
    in the field. However, more than 5 years since the passage of the TVPA,
    the U.S. government lacks fundamental information on the nature and extent
    of the global trafficking problem and an overall strategy for agencies to
    target their programs and resources abroad.

    As the United States and other countries work to identify victims of
    trafficking, the scope of the global trafficking problem remains unknown
    in terms of overall numbers within countries of origin; victims' gender,
    age, and type of exploitation suffered; and the profile and methods of the
    perpetrators. The United States has provided about $375 million in
    antitrafficking assistance since 2001 for projects in about 100 countries.
    However, the lack of an overall government strategy which ties together
    and leverages the program expertise and resources of agencies with the
    knowledge of victims' identity and location, raises questions about
    whether antitrafficking activities are targeted where they are most
    needed. Furthermore, little evaluation research has been conducted to
    determine which international antitrafficking activities are working or
    how best to tailor them to meet specific needs.

    The fight against human trafficking will almost certainly require years of
    effort and the continued monitoring of governments' actions. To enhance
    its usefulness as a diplomatic tool, the narratives and country rankings
    in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report must be viewed as credible by
    governments and informed human rights and country observers. However, the
    report does not comprehensively or clearly describe how decisions about
    tier rankings were reached. Moreover, problems identified in the report
    provide the means to better identify program needs and allocate resources,
    but agencies have not linked their activities to identified deficiencies.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    To improve efforts to combat trafficking in persons abroad, we recommend
    that the Secretary of State, in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency
    Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, consider the following
    actions:

    1. Work closely with relevant agencies as they implement U.S. law calling
           for research into the creation of an effective mechanism to develop a
           global estimate of trafficking. This could include assigning a
           trafficking data and research unit to serve as an interagency focal
           point charged with developing an overall research strategy, collecting
           and analyzing data, and directing research.
    2. In conjunction with relevant agencies, develop and implement a
           strategic approach that would delineate agency roles and
           responsibilities in relation to each other, strengthen mechanisms for
           integrating activities, and determine priorities, measurable goals,
           time frames, performance measures, and a methodology to gauge results.
    3. To improve the credibility of State's annual report on trafficking in
    persons, we recommend that the Secretary of State ensure that the
    report clearly documents the rationale and support for tier rankings and
    improve the report's usefulness for programming by making the narratives
    more comprehensive.

      Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

      We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of
    State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor;
    the Administrator of USAID; the U.S. government agency that prepares the
    trafficking estimate; and cognizant officials at the ILO, IOM, and UNODC,
    or their designees. We received written comments from State, which are
    reprinted in appendix V along with our responses to specific points.

    State generally agreed with our recommendations. State agreed with our
    first recommendation to work closely with relevant agencies as they
    implement U.S. law calling for research into the creation of an effective
    mechanism to develop a global estimate of trafficking and provided
    detailed suggestions for areas of future research that are consistent with
    our findings. Regarding our second recommendation that the Secretary of
    State develop and implement a strategic approach, State recognized the
    need for better performance measures and enhanced interagency coordination
    while also stating that roles and responsibilities have been established.
    In response, we clarified our recommendation to state that agencies' roles
    and responsibilities should be delineated in relation to each other,
    consistent with our report findings. In response to our third
    recommendation, State said that while its annual Trafficking in Persons
    Report can improve, it has become a much richer, more useful product since
    first published in 2001. State also said our report includes some useful
    recommendations that the department will explore integrating with ongoing
    efforts in light of available resources. In addition, State commented that
    its 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report offers a greater and more
    consistent examination of the minimum standards as they apply to each
    country. We conducted a selective review of 26 tier 1 country narratives
    in the 2006 report and found that many of the concerns we cited in our
    report remain. For example, none of the tier 1 country narratives clearly
    explained whether or not the government complied with the second minimum
    standard established in the TVPA, which, among other things, calls for
    governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking that is
    commensurate with that for grave crimes such as forcible sexual assault.

    In oral comments, the U.S. government agency that prepares the trafficking
    estimate fundamentally concurs with our characterization of the U.S.
    global estimate of trafficking flows. The agency stated that it has sought
    to improve upon the 2004 estimate's accuracy and utility through working
    with an outside contractor with the intention of thoroughly documenting
    and vetting a methodology, as well as preparing detailed recommendations
    for improving future estimates. According to the agency, many of this
    contractor's initial recommendations have been in-line with those
    delineated in our report. Despite these efforts and the inherent
    difficulty of preparing estimates of hidden populations, the agency agreed
    with our overall findings-particularly with the idea that housing the
    estimate in the intelligence community makes it opaque and inaccessible.
    The agency stated that it believes that other U.S. government agencies are
    best positioned to produce the global trafficking estimate in the future,
    because they have access to the same unclassified data, would be better
    able to vet the methodology, and could provide additional information to
    allow for a closer link between international and domestic human
    trafficking flow estimates.

    State, Justice, Labor, USAID, the U.S. government agency that prepared the
    trafficking estimate, and the ILO, IOM, and UNODC submitted technical
    comments which we have incorporated into this report as appropriate.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
    this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
    the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
    Secretaries of State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland
    Security, and Labor; the Administrator of USAID; the U.S. government
    agency that prepares the trafficking estimate; ILO; IOM; and UNODC; and
    interested congressional committees. Copies of this report will also be
    made available to other interested parties on request. In addition, this
    report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at

    h ttp://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-9601. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
    Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
    GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in
    appendix VI.

    Thomas Melito, Director International Affairs and Trade

     Appendix I

     Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Our objectives were to examine (1) estimates of the extent of global
    trafficking in persons, (2) the U.S. government's strategy to combat
    trafficking in persons abroad, and (3) the Department of State's (State)
    process for evaluating foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts.

    To examine estimates of the extent of global human trafficking, we
    conducted an analysis of the global trafficking databases developed and
    maintained by the U.S. government, the International Organization for
    Migration (IOM), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the U.N.
    Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). We met with officials from each
    organization, determined the reliability of their global trafficking data,
    reviewed documents and assessed their methodologies for collecting and
    analyzing human trafficking data, and analyzed the data collected by IOM.
    We examined ILO, UNODC, and IOM reports.1 We also reviewed the existing
    relevant literature on data and methodologies used in global human
    trafficking research. We collected reports, journal articles, conference
    presentations, U.S. government sponsored studies, and books that discuss
    human trafficking. We read and analyzed these documents and used them to
    identify issues that affect the quality of data on trafficking. We grouped
    these issues into three major categories: availability, reliability, and
    comparability.

    To examine the U.S. government's strategy for combating human trafficking
    abroad, we reviewed U.S. laws and presidential directives describing
    actions that various U.S. government entities were to undertake in
    combating trafficking. These include the Trafficking Victims Protection
    Act (TVPA) of 2000 and its reauthorizations in 2003 and 2005, Executive
    Order 13257, and National Security Presidential Directive 22. We also
    analyzed documents and interviewed officials from the Departments of
    Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice, Labor,
    State, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
    Documents we reviewed include each agency's plan to implement the
    presidential directive, agency and project-level monitoring and evaluation
    documents, project proposals, interagency coordination guidance, the
    Bureau Performance Plan from State's Office to Monitor and Combat
    Trafficking in Persons, USAID's strategy to combat trafficking in

    1Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle and Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum
    Estimate of Forced Labor in the World, ILO (Geneva: April 2005); UNODC,
    Trafficking in Persons Global Patterns, (Vienna: April 2006); and IOM,
    Data and Research on Human Trafficking: A Global Survey (Geneva: 2005).

    Page 41 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
    Methodology

    persons, as well as regional and country-level strategic framework
    documents.

    To examine State's process for evaluating foreign governments'
    antitrafficking efforts, we reviewed 122 country narratives in the 2005
    Trafficking in Persons Report. We examined the narratives for all 66
    countries in tier 1, tier 2 watch list, and tier 3. For the 77 narratives
    in tier 2, we reviewed all of the narratives for the 35 countries whose
    tiers had changed from the previous year's report. For the remaining 42
    country narratives, we drew a random probability sample of 21 countries.
    With this probability sample, each narrative in the 2005 report had a
    nonzero probability of being included and that probability could be
    computed for any member. Each sample element was subsequently weighted in
    the analysis to account statistically for all the narratives in the 2005
    report, including those not selected. Because we followed a probability
    procedure based on a random selection of tier 2 countries, our sample is
    only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each
    sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence
    in the precision of our particular sample's results as a 95 percent
    confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 5 percentage points). This is the
    interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of
    the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident
    that each of the intervals in this report will include the true values in
    the study population. All percentage estimates from the narrative review
    have margins of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less, unless
    otherwise noted.

    In addition, we systematically compared the country narratives describing
    these governments' antitrafficking efforts with the minimum standards and
    five core criteria in the legislation and determined whether or not the
    country narrative mentioned each standard or criteria. If the country
    narrative did not mention a standard or criteria, we coded that as "not
    mentioned." If the country narrative did mention a standard or criteria,
    we determined whether the narrative showed that the government complied or
    did not comply with the standard or criteria. If we determined that the
    narrative showed that the government complied with the standard or
    criteria, we coded that as "yes." If we determined that the narrative
    showed that the government did not comply with the standard or criteria,
    we coded that as "no." In some cases, the narrative mentioned a standard
    or criteria, but we could not determine conclusively whether or not the
    narrative demonstrated the government's compliance. We coded those cases
    as "not clear." Finally, elements of some criteria were not applicable to
    certain countries. For example, if the report described a country as a
    source of trafficking victims rather than as a destination for victims, the
    criterion regarding provision of victims with legal alternatives to
    deportation would not apply. We coded these cases as "not applicable." We
    then tallied the number of responses in each category.

    Finally, to ensure analytical validity and reliability, our analysis
    involved multiple phases of checking and review of analytical procedures,
    categories, and results. Two GAO analysts reviewed a selection of country
    narratives, independently coded them, and agreed on the basis for the
    coding decisions. Next, one GAO analyst performed the coding for the
    remaining country narratives. A second GAO analyst reviewed a number of
    these coding decisions and both analysts discussed them. Finally, a third
    GAO analyst performed a review of all coding decisions and tabulations. In
    addition, to ensure the reliability of the funding data used, we reviewed
    the information collected by the State Department on each agency's funding
    obligations. We then checked with each individual agency to verify that
    the amounts State reported were correct.

    We conducted our review from September 2005 to May 2006 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II

    Methodologies Used by Four Organizations to Collect Data on Human Trafficking

    This appendix describes the data sources, data validation, methodology,
    and key assumptions used by the U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM to
    collect data on and/or estimate the extent of human trafficking as well as
    the limitations of these databases. (See tables 4 and 5.)

                Table 4: Four Organizations' Data Sources and Validation

                            U.S. government ILOa UNODCb IOMc

    Episodes/    1500                1534           4950           7711
    cases
    Data sources Public              Public         Public         Data
                    sources-articles    sources-1500   sources-       collected
                    primarily           publications   publications   by IOM
                    identified and      in multiple    such as        missions
                    translated into     languages such reports,       from
                    English by the      as reports,    periodicals,   victims
                    Foreign             court and      books, Web     starting in
                    Broadcasting        police         sites and      Kosovo in
                    Information         records, trade others from    1999/2000
                    Service, Stop       unions, NGOs,  113 individual and
                    Traffic List Serve, academia and   source         expanding
                    IOM, UN, ILO and    the media      institutions   to 26
                    NGOs based          between 1995   between 1996   countries
                                        to 2004.       to 2003.       through
                                                                      2005.
                    on trafficking
                    incidents in 2000
                    to 2001.

    Data        Performed by one        Based on an Performed by  Inaccuracies
    validation  analyst.                organized       one       corrected by
                                           procedure   researcher.  the original
                                           involving                 data entry
                                           four
                                           steps.                   official.

    Source: GAO analysis of U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM data.

    aFor a detailed discussion, see Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle and
    Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, ILO
    (Geneva: April 2005).

    bFor a detailed discussion, see UNODC, Trafficking in Persons Global
    Patterns (Vienna: April 2006).

    cFor a detailed discussion, see IOM, Data and Research on Human
    Trafficking: A Global Survey (Geneva: 2005).

      Table 5: Four Organizations' Methodologies, Key Assumptions and Limitations

                   U.S. government ILOa               UNODCb         IOMc
    Methodology (A) average of  Estimation based   (A) assignment          Not
                                   on two             of a score      applicable.
                         aggregate extrapolations:    of 1 each time
                      estimates of                    a country
                      reported and (A) estimation of  is reported by
                        unreported all                a different
                   victims         reported victimse  institution
                   (B) data        (B) estimation of  (B) coding
                   augmentation to all reported and   gender, age,
                   fill in missing unreported         and type of
                   values. d       victims. f         trafficking
                                                      using the same
                                                      technique.

                                    Key assumptions

    For (A) above-     For (A) above-technical For both (A) and            Not
                                                  (B)                 applicable.
    underlying data of conditions for the      above-
    total
    victims are        procedure are met;      how much a country
    reliable and                                               is
    comparable;        For (B) above-          affected by the
                                                  trafficking
    For (B) above-     the ratio of the        problem depends on
                          average                 the
    technical          duration of a case      frequency of it
    conditions         divided                 being
    for the procedure  by the probability of   reported by
    are                being                   different
    plausible.         reported is greater     institutions.
                          than or
                          equal to 10.

    Limitations     o  internal o  limited o  no         o  data limited to
                   trafficking not to sources information   the
                                   in 11      about the
                   studied         languages    number of   countries where IOM
                                                 victims
                     o  subject to            o  no measure has a presence
                      very limited            of the
                     peer review              severity of   o  confidentiality of
                                              the problem                  victim
                     o  may not be            o  internal   assistance
                        replicable            trafficking
                                              not
                                              studied       o  may not be
                                                            generalizable
                   o  cannot be used for time
                   series studies
                   o  not based on reliable
                   country level data

    Source: GAO analysis of U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM data.

    aFor a detailed discussion, see Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle and
    Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World, ILO
    (Geneva: April 2005).

    bFor a detailed discussion, see UNODC, Trafficking in Persons Global
    Patterns (Vienna: April 2006).

    cFor a detailed discussion, see IOM, Data and Research on Human
    Trafficking: A Global Survey (Geneva: 2005).

    dThe data augmentation is performed using Monte Carlo Markov chain
    simulations with Bayesian inference. Making use of plausible values for
    unknown information, the technique replaces missing data under a wide
    range of conditions to reflect uncertainty in the open source information
    regarding the type of trafficking, age group, gender, country of origin
    and destination.

    eThe estimation procedure uses the capture-recapture method. Two random
    samples of reported human trafficking cases are independently drawn and
    the counts of common and different cases between the two samples are used
    to estimate the total number of reported trafficking cases.

    fUnder the most conservative assumption, the minimum estimate corresponds
    to assigning to the probability of being reported a value of 1.

    Appendix III

    Eight U.S. Government Entities' Data on Human Trafficking

    This appendix describes the data on human trafficking maintained by eight

    U.S. government entities. (See table 6.)

    Table 6: Data on Human Trafficking Maintained by U.S. Government Entities

                          Page 46 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    Agency                             Trafficking data fields
    Justice-Office for Victims of      -Type of trafficking (labor, sex,
    Crime                              other)
                                          - Identification of victims
                                          (nationality, age, gender)
    Justice-Civil Rights Division      Trafficking cases prosecuted in the
                                          United States, including
                                          -Information about traffickers
                                          -Type of trafficking (commercial sex,
                                          involuntary servitude)
    Justice-Federal Bureau of          -Information about traffickers (names,
    Investigation, Criminal            business involved, criminal
    Investigation
    Division                           organization connections)
                                          -Type of trafficking (commercial sex,
                                          migrant farms, construction,
                                          labor camps, domestic servitude)
                                          -Identification of victims
                                          (nationality, age, gender, recruitment
                                          method)
                                          -Points of entry
                                          -Logistics (use of illegal documents,
                                          funding)
    Justice-Bureau of Justice          -Number of potential domestic victims
    Assistance                         identified by task forces
                                          -Number of identified potential
                                          domestic victims for which law
                                          enforcement has requested continued
                                          presencea in the United
                                          Stataes
    HHS                                Trafficking victims certified in the
                                          United States, including
                                          -Age (minor or adult)
                                          -Gender
                                          -Geographic distribution of the
                                          certification (i.e., which U.S. state)
                                          -Nationality
    DHS                                Trafficking victims awarded continued
                                          presence:
                                          -Date of birth
                                          -Gender
                                          -Nationality
                                          Information about traffickers,
                                          including:
                                          -Name
                                          -Nationality
                                          -Gender
                                          -Date of Birth
                                          -Violation type
                                          -Statute used to arrest the violator
    Labor                              Nature and extent of 144 countries'
                                          worst forms of child labor,
                                          including children involved in forced
                                          labor and sexual exploitation
    National Central Bureau (INTERPOL) Individuals wanted internationally for
                                          trafficking/smuggling related
                                          crimes

    Sources: Departments of Justice, HHS, DHS, Labor, and the National Central
    Bureau.

    aFederal law enforcement officials who encounter alien victims of severe
    forms of trafficking in persons who are potential witnesses to that
    trafficking may request that DHS grant the continued presence of these
    victims in the United States in order to ensure prosecution of those
    responsible.

    Appendix IV

    State's Process for Assessing Foreign Governments' Compliance with U.S. Minimum
    Standards to Eliminate Human Trafficking

    Table 7: Minimum Standards and Criteria for the Elimination of Human Trafficking

    Standard 1 The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of
    trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.

    Standard 2 For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking
    involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which the victim of sex
    trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of
    trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the
    government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with
    that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.

    Standard 3 For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of
    trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe
    punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately
    reflects the heinous nature of the offense.

    Standard 4 The government of the country should make serious and sustained
    efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.

    Criterion 1 Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates
    and prosecutes acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons, and
    convicts and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place
    wholly or partly within the territory of the country. After reasonable
    requests from the Department of State for data regarding investigations,
    prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government, which does not
    provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such government to
    obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated,
    prosecuted, convicted or sentenced such acts. During the periods prior to
    the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004, and on June 1, 2005, and the
    periods afterwards until September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of
    State may disregard the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if
    the government has provided some data to the Department of State regarding
    such acts and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a
    goodfaith effort to collect such data.

    Criterion 2 Whether the government of the country protects victims of
    severe forms of trafficking in persons and encourages their assistance in
    investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including provisions
    for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would
    face retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not
    inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solely for
    unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked.

    Criterion 3 Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to
    prevent severe trafficking in persons, such as measures to inform and
    educate the public, including potential victims, about the causes and
    consequences of severe trafficking.

    Criterion 4 Whether the government of the country cooperates with other
    governments in the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of
    trafficking in persons.

    Criterion 5 Whether the government of the country extradites persons
    charged with acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons on
    substantially the same terms and to substantially the same extent as
    persons charged with other serious crimes (or, to the extent such
    extradition would be inconsistent with the laws of such country or with
    international agreements to which the country is a party, whether the
    government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such
    laws and treaties so as to permit such extradition.)

    Criterion 6 Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and
    emigration patterns for evidence of severe forms of trafficking in persons
    and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond to any such
    evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation
    and prosecution of acts of such trafficking, as well as with the
    protection of human rights of victims and the internationally recognized
    human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to
    one's own country.

    Criterion 7 Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates,
    prosecutes, convicts, and sentences public officials who participate in or
    facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons, and takes all
    appropriate measures against officials who condone such trafficking. After
    reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding
    investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government,
    which does not provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such
    government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously
    investigated, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced such acts. During the
    periods prior to the annual report submitted on June 1, 2004 and on June
    1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until September 30 of each such year,
    the Secretary of State may disregard the presumption contained in the
    preceding sentence if the government has provided some data to the
    Department of State regarding such acts and the Secretary has determined
    that the government is making a good-faith effort to collect such data.

    Criterion 8 Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of
    trafficking in the country that are noncitizens of such countries is
    insignificant.

    Criterion 9 Whether the government of the country, consistent with the
    capacity of such government, systematically monitors its efforts to
    satisfy the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and makes
    available publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.

    Criterion 10 Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable
    progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the
    assessment in the previous year.

    Sources: TVPA 2000 and TVPA 2003.

    Note: Criteria in bold text are those that the Trafficking Office has
    designated "core criteria."

    Figure 6 illustrates the Department of State's process for producing the
    annual Trafficking in Persons Report.

          Figure 6: Key Elements of the Trafficking in Persons Report Process

                Source: GAO analysis of Department of State information.

                                       Appendix V

                         Comments from the Department of State

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

                                     See comment 1.

                                     See comment 2.

                                     See comment 3.

                                     See comment 4.

                                     See comment 5.

                                     See comment 6.

                                     See comment 7.

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter,
    dated June 30, 2006.

                          Page 60 GAO-06-825 Human Trafficking

    GAO Comments 1. State agreed that more research would help in the fight
                       against human
                       trafficking. State said that its Trafficking in Persons
                       office (G/TIP)
                       continues to pursue better estimates of the scope of
                       trafficking; that the
                       Senior Policy Operating Group (the Group) has established
                       a
                       subcommittee on trafficking research to, among other
                       things, ensure
                       regular interagency communication on research and close
                       the most
                       important data gaps; that G/TIP plans to set aside a
                       substantial portion
                       of its program budget for trafficking research; and that
                       G/TIP funds
                       IOM's database. We recognize two ongoing projects to
                       develop better
                       estimates of trafficking and note that it is too early to
                       assess the results
                       of these projects. The Group subcommittee began meeting
                       within the
                       past year and, at the time of our review, had not
                       established research
                       priorities. During our review, G/TIP staff expressed
                       concern about the
                       limited amount of funding available for research,
                       including continued
                       funding for IOM's database, which G/TIP partially funds.
                       State said that a better global estimate of the number of
                    2. trafficking
                       victims should not be the primary focus of additional
                       research
                       initiatives. State said a more valuable approach would be
                       information
                       on the comparative severity of trafficking in particular
                       regions,
                       countries, or localities; on the methods used by
                       traffickers; and the
                       effectiveness of antitrafficking programs. We believe our
                       recommendation is consistent with State's comments. We
                       agree that
                       additional research on these areas is valuable as
                       discussed in the
                       report. We report that reliable and comparable country
                       data do not
                       exist. We also report that U.S. agencies collect
                       information on
                       traffickers and their victims but do not share their
                       information or
                       analyze the information to identify trends and compile a
                       profile of
                       victims. We also describe the value of IOM's database in
                       providing
                       information on traffickers' routes and nationalities and
                       the mechanisms
                       they use to identify and manipulate their victims. We also
                       agree that
                       more information on the effectiveness of antitrafficking
                       programs is
                       needed, and we note that little or no evidence is
                       currently available to
                       indicate the extent to which different types of efforts
                       impact the level
                       of trafficking. Our recommendation calls upon the
                       Secretary of State,
                       in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Task Force to
                       Monitor and
                       Combat Trafficking in Persons, to consider assigning a
                       trafficking data and research unit but does not call for
    						 setting up a new unit as State's comments suggest.

    1. State agreed with the need for better performance measures, said that
           the Group is looking at how to reconcile the different agency grants
           processes so as to achieve an earlier exchange of information, and
           said that State will address enhanced interagency coordination in its
           upcoming G/TIP office strategy. State said that roles and
           responsibilities of government agencies in combating trafficking in
           persons have been established. We have clarified our recommendation to
           state that agencies' roles and responsibilities should be delineated
           in relation to each other, consistent with our report findings. State
           also said that the Group creates an active forum where interagency
           representatives work together to identify strengths and weaknesses of
           of the Group's the U.S. approach to combat trafficking in real time.
           State also said that the Attorney General's annual report and several
           of the Group's subcommittees focus on improving efforts to combat
           trafficking in persons. We reported findings from the Attorney
           General's report. We also reported that the Group, through the work of
           its various subcommittees, served as a forum for agency officials to
           discuss trafficking policy and programs. However, based on information
           from the other Group members, we believe that our report remains
           accurate in also stating that the Group has not developed or
           implemented a systematic way for agencies to identify priorities and
           target efforts abroad to complement each others' activities to achieve
           greater results than if the agencies were acting alone.
    2. The Department of State agrees with our finding that its annual
           Trafficking in Persons Report could provide more comprehensive and
           clearer explanations for the tier ranking decisions. The Department of
           State said that the 2006 report offers a greater and more consistent
           examination of the minimum standards as they apply to each country. We
           conducted a selective review of 26 tier 1 country narratives in the
           2006 report and found that many of the concerns we cited in our report
           remain. For example, none of the tier 1 country narratives clearly
           explained how the government complied with the second minimum standard
           established in the TVPA, which, among other things, calls for
           governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking involving
           force, fraud, or coercion that is commensurate with that for grave
           crimes such as forcible sexual assault. Also, as in the 2005 report,
           our review found that some tier 1 country narratives in the 2006
           report described governments' failure to comply with certain core
           criteria, but the narratives did not explain how the governments'
    		 success in meeting the
    other core criteria outweighed these deficiencies and justified their
    placement in tier 1. We acknowledge in our report that the Department of
    State is not legislatively mandated to include country narratives in the
    annual Trafficking in Persons Report. However, the 2006 Trafficking in
    Persons Report and reports from previous years characterize the country
    narratives as "an assessment of the government's compliance with the
    minimum standards ... as laid out in the TVPA of 2000, as amended."
    According to the report, the narratives are also intended to explain the
    basis for the tier ranking decisions.

    1. State said that under G/TIP's current guidelines to keep narratives
           short, readable, and focused on deficiencies, the Trafficking in
           Persons Report does not provide (and the law does not require) an
           exhaustive examination of compliance with all of the minimum
           standards' criteria. According to State, such an approach would create
           lengthy country narratives that would lose their readability,
           effectiveness, and policy relevance and would significantly increase
           the size of the report. As described in our report, we did not assess
           whether the 2005 report's country narratives considered all 10
           criteria for the fourth minimum standard, and we do not criticize the
           Department of State for failing to provide an exhaustive examination
           of governments' compliance with all 10 of these criteria. Instead, our
           analysis focused on the four minimum standards required by the TVPA;
           and for the fourth standard, we looked only at whether the narratives
           explained governments' compliance with the five core criteria
           identified by the Trafficking Office. We believe these issues can be
           discussed while maintaining a concise reporting format.
    2. State said the TVPA requires the Trafficking in Persons Report to
           include countries with a "significant number of victims of severe
           forms of trafficking." As a matter of policy the minimum "significant
           number of victims" has been defined as 100. As discussed in our
           report, our interviews with State officials as well as our review of
           the 2005 report's country narratives indicated that some countries'
           inclusion in the report was questionable. State acknowledges that many
           countries have not analyzed their crime statistics through the prism
           of trafficking in persons, making the available data unreliable.
    3. State said the law does not clearly define what constitutes a
           sufficient sentence to deter, or that adequately reflects the heinous
           nature of the offense. The department has defined "sufficiently
           stringent" punishment to mean time in jail, preferably at least several
    		 years in
    jail. We recognize the subjectivity of the third minimum standard in our
    report. Even though some narratives indicate that countries prescribe jail
    time, State's report does not explicitly state the department's definition
    that sufficiently stringent means some jail time nor did some of the
    narratives state that the punishment was sufficiently stringent. Thus, it
    is unclear how the government complied with this minimum standard.

    Appendix VI

                         GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

      GAO Contact

    Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov

      Staff Acknowledgments

    Cheryl Goodman, Assistant Director; Suzanne Dove; Christina Werth;
    Gergana Danailova-Trainor; Bruce Kutnick; Barbara Stolz; and Patrick
    Dickriede made key contributions to this report. In addition, Lynn
    Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Etana Finkler, and Mary Moutsos provided
    technical or legal assistance.

      GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
    accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every
    afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                                 Order by Mail or Phone

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    Contact:

    To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***