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 [email protected]
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: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (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, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***