Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the
Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat
Trafficking Crimes (26-JUL-07, GAO-07-915).
Human trafficking is a transnational crime whose victims include
men, women, and children and may involve violations of labor,
immigration, antislavery, and other criminal laws. To ensure
punishment of traffickers and protection of victims, Congress
passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA),
which is subject to reauthorization in 2007. The Departments of
Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) lead federal
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking crimes. As
requested, this report discusses (1) key activities federal
agencies have undertaken to combat human trafficking crimes, (2)
federal efforts to coordinate investigations and prosecutions of
these crimes, and (3) how the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
supported federally funded state and local human trafficking task
forces. GAO reviewed strategies, reports, and other agency
documents; analyzed trafficking data; and interviewed agency
officials and task force members.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-915
ACCNO: A73433
TITLE: Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help
Enhance the Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively
Combat Trafficking Crimes
DATE: 07/26/2007
SUBJECT: Crimes
Federal aid to states
Federal law
Federal/state relations
Investigations by federal agencies
Law enforcement
Law enforcement agencies
Police training
Strategic planning
Training utilization
Human trafficking
Policies and procedures
Program goals or objectives
******************************************************************
** 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-07-915
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Key Activities to Combat Tr
* [4]Federal Agencies Reported a General Increase in Investigatio
* [5]Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Training, Outreach, and Sta
* [6]Individual Federal Agencies Have Established Special Units,
* [7]Federal Agencies Have Coordinated on Individual Trafficking
* [8]Federal Agencies Have Coordinated Trafficking Efforts on a C
* [9]A Strategic Framework Could Be Important to Implementing Exp
* [10]BJA Has Helped Support Federally Funded State and Local Huma
* [11]BJA Funds State and Local Law Enforcement Human Trafficking
* [12]BJA Has Provided Some Technical Assistance to the Task Force
* [13]Continuing and Additional Task Force Technical Assistance Ne
* [14]Technical Assistance Plan Could Enhance BJA's Support to
Hum
* [15]Conclusions
* [16]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [17]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [18]Federal Agencies Report Prosecutions and Investigations of T
* [19]Resource Commitments of Federal Investigative and Prosecutor
* [20]United States v. Kil Soo Lee
* [21]United States v. Carreto
* [22]GAO Contact
* [23]Staff Acknowledgments
* [24]GAO's Mission
* [25]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [26]Order by Mail or Phone
* [27]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [28]Congressional Relations
* [29]Public Affairs
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
July 2007
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency Collaboration
Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes
GAO-07-915
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 8
Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Key Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons Crimes 13
Federal Agencies Have Coordinated on Individual Trafficking Cases, but a
Strategic Framework Could Help Further and Sustain Interagency
Collaboration 20
BJA Has Helped Support Federally Funded State and Local Human Trafficking
Law Enforcement Task Forces, but Lacks a Plan to Identify and Focus
Technical Assistance Needs 28
Conclusions 37
Recommendations for Executive Action 38
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42
Appendix II Statutory Provisions Used to Investigate and Prosecute
Trafficking Crimes 46
Appendix III Federal Efforts to Investigate and Prosecute Trafficking in
Persons and Data on Resources 48
Appendix IV Summary Case Studies 56
Appendix V Comments from the Department of Justice 60
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 64
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 67
Related GAO Products 68
Tables
Table 1: Primary Statutory Provisions Used for Trafficking in Persons
Prosecutions 47
Table 2: Other Related Statutory Provisions Used in Trafficking in Persons
Prosecutions 47
Table 3: Trafficking in Persons Prosecutorial Statistics for Civil Rights
Division/Criminal Section and U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Fiscal Year 1995
through June 14, 2007 49
Table 4: Trafficking in Persons Cases Investigated by the FBI's Civil
Rights Unit, Fiscal Year 2001 through April 5, 2007 50
Table 5: Trafficking in Persons Cases Investigated by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2005 through May 31, 2007 51
Table 6: Innocence Lost Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004 through June 5, 2007
52
Table 7: DOJ Estimates of CRT/CS Trafficking in Persons Resources, Fiscal
Years 2000-2007 54
Figures
Figure 1: Federal Agencies with Primary Responsibilities for Investigating
and Prosecuting Trafficking in Persons Crimes 10
Figure 2: BJA-Funded Human Trafficking Law Enforcement Task Forces 31
Abbreviations
AUSA Assistant U.S. Attorney
BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance
CEOS Criminal Division/Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
CRT/CS Civil Rights Division/Criminal Section
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOJ Department of Justice
DOL Department of Labor
DOS Department of State
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act
HSTC Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center
HTP Human Trafficking Prosecution
ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE TIPS ICE Trafficking in Persons Strategy
JTN Justice Television Network
OVC Office for Victims of Crime
SAC Special Agent in Charge
TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
WHD Wage and Hour Division
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.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
July 26, 2007
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Ranking Member
Committee on Foreign Affairs
House of Representatives
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner
House of Representatives
Human trafficking is a transnational crime whose victims include men,
women, and children and may involve violations of labor, immigration,
antislavery, and other criminal laws. Victims of trafficking are bought,
sold, sometimes transported across national boundaries, and forced to work
in legal or illegal situations, including the sex industry, sweatshops,
domestic service, and agriculture, among others.^1 What usually
distinguishes trafficking from crimes such as alien smuggling or other
labor law violations is the trafficker's use of force, fraud, or coercion
to compel these victims into, or hold them in, the employment situation.
Despite international acknowledgment of the trafficking problem as a human
rights violation, estimates of the number of victims remain questionable
because of methodological weaknesses, gaps in data, and numerical
discrepancies.^2 Since the mid-1990s, the United States has played a
leading role in putting trafficking in persons on the international
community's agenda and pursued trafficking crimes within the United
States. By 2000, various U.S. policymakers had determined that existing
U.S. statutes scattered enforcement authority across the government and
did not adequately protect trafficking victims, deter trafficking, and
bring traffickers to justice.
As a result, in October 2000, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) to ensure just and effective punishment of
traffickers and protection of victims.^3 Among other things, the TVPA made
it illegal to obtain or maintain persons for commercial sexual activity,
using force, fraud, or coercion for those 18 or over (but proof of force,
fraud, or coercion is not required for those under 18), and to use certain
kinds of force or coercion to provide or obtain persons for any labor or
services (e.g., work in farms, factories, and households). The act also
updated and supplemented existing involuntary servitude statutes used to
prosecute trafficking crimes, enhanced the penalties for trafficking
crimes, and provided a range of new protections and assistance for victims
of trafficking. Congress reauthorized the act in 2003 and 2005, and it is
subject to reauthorization in 2007.^4
^1The terms "human trafficking" and "trafficking in persons" are often used
interchangeably. In this report, we use the term "trafficking in persons,"
as referred to in U.S. law, except where source documents use the term
"human trafficking."
^2See GAO, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed
to Enhance U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad, [30]GAO-06-825
(Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2006).
^3Pub. L. No. 106-386, div. A, 114 Stat. 1464, 1466-91 (2000).
Nevertheless, pursuing trafficking in persons crimes continues to present
special challenges to federal investigators and prosecutors. Since the
primary eyewitness to and evidence of the crime is typically the
trafficking victim, the first step in pursuing these crimes is usually to
identify victims. Yet these victims are often hidden from view, employed
in legal or illegal enterprises, do not view themselves as victims, or are
considered to be criminals or accessories to crimes (e.g., prostitutes or
smuggled aliens) subject to incarceration or deportation. A
nongovernmental organization, average citizens, or even state and local
law enforcement working in the community may be the first point of contact
for a trafficking victim, rather than federal law enforcement.
Moreover, trafficking in persons cases are difficult to pursue because
they are multifaceted, complex, and resource intensive. Federal agencies
have to determine whether those identified as potential victims have in
fact been trafficked and then secure their cooperation in order to pursue
the investigation and prosecution of the traffickers. Victims may be
reluctant to testify because of trauma, fear, loyalty to the trafficker,
or distrust of law enforcement. Moreover, a single case may involve one or
hundreds of victims, requiring housing, food, and other services from
federal agencies; diverse offenses, such as violent crime, labor
exploitation, sex crimes, alien smuggling, organized crime, and financial
crimes; and collection of significant evidence from overseas.
^4Pub. L. No. 108-193, 117 Stat. 2875 (2003); Pub. L. No. 109-164, 119
Stat. 3558 (2006).
Accordingly, investigating and prosecuting trafficking crimes requires
collaboration^5 among multiple components of the Departments of Justice
(DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) with responsibilities for investigating
and prosecuting trafficking crimes. Identifying trafficking and victims
can also involve collaboration between DOJ and DHS agencies and components
of the Departments of Labor (DOL) and State (DOS) that may uncover
information relevant to the pursuit of trafficking crimes in the course of
carrying out their missions. Collaboration is also needed between federal
agencies and state and local law enforcement and nongovernmental
organizations. Recognizing the need to leverage these resources to
identify victims and support federal efforts to pursue traffickers, DOJ's
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), working with the Office for Victims of
Crime (OVC), implemented a competitive grant program in 2004 to fund human
trafficking law enforcement task forces composed of state and local law
enforcement agencies, field offices of federal agencies, and victim and
social service organizations with the support of the local U.S. Attorney.
As of fiscal year 2006, BJA had funded 42 task forces across the country.
As requested, to ascertain the status of U.S. efforts to investigate and
prosecute trafficking crimes, this report discusses (1) key activities
federal agencies have undertaken to combat trafficking in persons crimes,
(2) federal efforts to coordinate investigations and prosecutions of
trafficking in persons crimes and whether these efforts might be enhanced,
and (3) how BJA supported federally funded state and local human
trafficking task forces and whether these efforts might be improved. This
review is part of a larger body of work we have conducted on U.S. efforts
to combat trafficking in persons, here and abroad. A companion report that
examines U.S. and multilateral efforts to combat human trafficking
overseas was also issued today.^6
^5As defined in previous GAO work, for the purpose of this report we define
"collaboration" as any joint activity by two or more organizations that is
intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the
organizations act alone. We use the term "collaboration" broadly to
include interagency activities that others have variously defined as
"cooperation," "coordination," "integration," or "networking." See GAO,
Results-oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [31]GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 21, 2005).
To determine key activities federal agencies have undertaken to combat
trafficking in persons crimes, we reviewed agency reports describing these
activities and strategies and memorandums applicable to federal efforts to
address these crimes. We interviewed officials from DOJ, including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Civil Rights Division/Criminal
Section (CRT/CS), Criminal Division/Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section (CEOS), and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; DHS U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (CIS); DOL's Wage and Hour Division; DOS's Bureau of
Diplomatic Security and Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons; and the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC).^7 From the
FBI, ICE, CRT/CS, and CEOS, we obtained and analyzed relevant data on the
cases investigated and prosecuted, including numbers of cases, defendants
charged, and convictions, as well as, where possible, estimates of the
resources used to do so. We discussed the sources of these data with
federal agency officials to determine that these data were sufficiently
reliable to show trends in agencies' activities undertaken to investigate
and prosecute trafficking crimes.
To determine what efforts federal agencies have undertaken to coordinate
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking in persons crimes and
whether these efforts might be enhanced, we reviewed pertinent documents,
such as agency reports, strategies, and memorandums to field offices,
which described or directed agency and interagency coordination on
trafficking activities. We interviewed officials from DOJ headquarters,
including FBI, CRT/CS, CEOS, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys;
ICE and CIS; DOL's Wage and Hour Division; DOS's Bureau of Diplomatic
Security and Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons; and
HSTC. We also interviewed field personnel from FBI, ICE, DOL, and selected
U.S. Attorney's Offices. In addition, we used relevant GAO reports on
enhancing interagency collaboration as criteria.
^6See GAO, Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International
Antitrafficking Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements,
GAO-07-1034 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007). We previously issued Human
Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S.
Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad, [32]GAO-06-825 (Washington, D.C.: July
18, 2006).
^7The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 established
the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, to be jointly run by the
Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security, in order to collect
and disseminate information to help prevent clandestine terrorist travel
and facilitation of migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons. 8 U.S.C.
S 1777.
To assess how BJA has supported federally funded state and local human
trafficking task forces and whether these efforts might be improved, we
analyzed relevant documents and grant reports from BJA, including grant
solicitations, performance reports, and Web site information; met with
BJA, OVC, and CRT/CS officials to discuss the documents and technical
assistance to the task forces; made site visits to three task forces; and
conducted telephone interviews with key participants from four other task
forces. The task forces contacted were judgmentally selected based on the
length of time funded (fiscal year 2004); different levels of success,
based on BJA performance measures (e.g., number of identified potential
trafficking victims); and focus (e.g., trafficking for labor, sex, or
both). We interviewed key task force participants (e.g., Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, local and federal law enforcement, and representatives of
nongovernmental organizations) from the seven task forces. Although this
approach does not allow for generalizing, it provided additional
information on steps federal agencies took to support state and local
human trafficking task forces. In addition, we reviewed relevant GAO
reports on federal agencies' administration of grants or funding to state
and local entities.
We conducted our work from June 2006 through June 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I presents more
details about the scope and methodology of our work.
Results in Brief
Since the enactment of the TVPA in 2000, federal investigative and
prosecutorial agencies have undertaken several key activities to combat
trafficking in persons crimes, such as (1) investigating allegations of
trafficking leading to 139 prosecutions;^8 (2) providing training,
outreach, and state and local initiatives to support investigations and
prosecutions; and (3) addressing agency responsibilities by establishing
special units and developing agency-level goals, plans, and strategies.
For example, federal agencies have provided training on trafficking in
persons to their new and current personnel using a variety of techniques,
including integrating information on trafficking into the curriculum at
the respective training academies and centers, providing Web-based
training through internal agency Web sites, and developing and
disseminating guidance on how to pursue these cases. Agencies have also
sponsored outreach and training to state and local law enforcement,
nongovernmental organizations, and the general public, for example,
through a toll-free complaint line, newsletters, and national conferences.
Finally, ICE and CRT/CS have established special units focused on
trafficking, and ICE, FBI, CRT/CS, and DOL have developed goals,
strategies, or plans for carrying out their antitrafficking
responsibilities.
^8This number does not include any CEOS/Innocence Lost National Initiative
prosecutions for trafficking of U.S. children for commercial sex or
trafficking prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorney's offices and not
reported to CRT/CS.
Federal agencies have coordinated investigations and prosecutions of
trafficking crimes across agencies on a case-by-case basis, but their
approaches to expand the scope of efforts to combat trafficking could
benefit from an overall strategic framework to help enhance and sustain
interagency collaboration on trafficking in persons. Agencies have
described their coordination as reactive, and coordination has occurred as
determined by the needs of individual cases and the established
relationships among law enforcement officials across agencies. For
example, federal agencies worked together to successfully resolve a
landmark trafficking case involving over 250 victims. Federal agencies
identified additional activities needed to expand U.S. efforts to identify
trafficking victims and institutionalize collaborative relationships among
federal agencies and between federal agencies and state and local law
enforcement and nongovernmental organizations. These included developing
coordinated proactive approaches to identify trafficking victims;
intelligence gathering; analysis of trafficking patterns; and expanding
outreach to non-law-enforcement agencies, nongovernmental organizations,
and other law enforcement agencies. However, the current coordinating
mechanisms do not address the interagency collaboration needed for this
level of expanded effort, and individual agency plans only address
individual agency goals linked to agency missions--none of which is linked
to a common governmentwide outcome for investigations and prosecutions of
trafficking crimes. Additionally, while no single agency can bring
traffickers to justice, agencies have differing views on leadership of
U.S. efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking and information
sharing policies. Our previous work has shown that a strategic framework
that, at a minimum, includes agencies working together toward a common
outcome with mutually reinforcing strategies; agreed-on roles and
responsibilities; and compatible polices, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries can help enhance and sustain
collaboration among federal agencies dealing with issues, such as
trafficking in persons, that are national in scope and cross agency
jurisdictions.^9 Establishing such a strategic framework to investigate
and prosecute trafficking in persons crimes, as developed by federal
agencies to address the unique challenges posed by these crimes, could
help federal agencies enhance and sustain the collaboration needed to
expand their efforts to combat trafficking crimes.
To support U.S. efforts to identify trafficking victims and investigate
and prosecute trafficking in persons crimes, BJA established a competitive
grant program to fund state and local law enforcement human trafficking
task forces, but lacks a plan to identify and focus the task forces'
technical assistance needs. Since 2004, BJA has awarded 42 task force
grants (22 in fiscal year 2004 and 10 each in fiscal years 2005 and 2006)
of up to $450,000 each, for a 3-year period for a total of a total of
$17,324,182. According to BJA, it has used $1,433,000 of its general funds
to provide technical assistance to the task forces, including financing
the development of a train-the-trainer curriculum on human trafficking,
delivering training sessions using the curriculum, and funding the
national conference on human trafficking held in New Orleans in October
2006. In addition BJA reported that it had taken steps to help it respond
to human trafficking task force technical assistance needs, including
using task force performance measures to help resolve task force
performance issues; providing task forces with information to help them
submit better performance data; and conducting site visits, in conjunction
with other DOJ components, to some task forces. Nevertheless, DOJ
officials and task force members also pointed to continued and additional
technical assistance and training needs, including advanced training on
techniques to facilitate law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations
working together to interview trafficking victims, standardized protocols,
or a Web site to facilitate information sharing among the task forces. At
the time of our review, BJA did not have a technical assistance plan for
its human trafficking task force initiative. Our previous work on federal
grant programs has shown the need for agencies that administer grants or
funding to state and local entities to implement a plan to focus technical
assistance efforts on areas of greatest need.^10 BJA told us that it was
developing a plan to provide additional and proactive technical assistance
to the task forces, but as of June 2007 had not received the necessary
approvals.
^9See [33]GAO-06-15 .
^10See GAO, Community Services Block Grant Program: HHS Should Improve
Oversight by Focusing Monitoring and Assistance Efforts on Areas of High
Risk, [34]GAO-06-627 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2006).
To help ensure that the U.S. government maximizes its ability to enforce
laws governing trafficking in persons, we recommend that the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, with other agencies that
support these enforcement efforts, develop and implement a strategic
framework for investigating and prosecuting trafficking crimes that, at a
minimum, defines and articulates a common outcome; establishes mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies; agrees on roles and responsibilities; and
establishes compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate
across agency boundaries. In addition, to enable BJA to better support the
federally funded state and local human trafficking task forces, we
recommend that the Attorney General direct the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance to develop and implement a plan to help focus technical
assistance to the task forces.
DOJ and DHS generally agreed with the content of our report and the need
for enhanced collaboration to expand U.S. efforts to investigate and
prosecute trafficking crimes. Regarding our recommendation to the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a strategic
framework to coordinate U.S. efforts to investigate and prosecute
trafficking crimes, DOJ proposed that the report identify the need for
continued collaboration, but not mandate one particular collaborative
model. We acknowledged that it was not our intent to prescribe a
particular collaborative model and that specific elements of and
structures for developing and implementing the strategic framework would
be developed by the agencies involved. We added language to our report
that reinforces this point. Commenting on this recommendation, DHS said
that ICE would support such a framework if certain considerations were
taken into account, such as recognizing that agencies' roles in a
particular case would vary by available resources, local priorities, and
the nature of the case and investigation. GAO would expect that the
agencies involved in developing and implementing this framework would
determine how to address these considerations. DOJ identified the efforts
it would be undertaking by October 1, 2007, to address our recommendation
that the Attorney General call on the Director of BJA to develop a plan
for providing technical assistance to the human trafficking law
enforcement task forces.
Background
Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to combat
trafficking in persons. As the centerpiece for U.S. antitrafficking
efforts, the TVPA advanced a three-pronged victim-centered
approach--prevention of trafficking, protection and assistance for victims
of trafficking, and prosecution and punishment of traffickers. Among its
provisions, the TVPA addressed identified gaps in existing law and
enhanced the tools available to pursue these crimes. Specifically, the act
criminalized the obtaining or maintaining of persons for commercial sexual
activity, using force, fraud, or coercion for those 18 or over (but not
for those under 18), and to use certain kinds of force or coercion to
provide or obtain persons for any labor or services (e.g., work in farms,
factories, and households). It also included nonviolent coercion and
threats of harm to third persons in federal involuntary servitude laws;
made attempted trafficking crimes punishable; criminalized the holding of
actual or purported identity documents in the course of committing, or
with the intent to commit, any trafficking crime; and increased the
maximum penalty for slavery and involuntary servitude offenses from 10 to
20 years or to a life sentence if the offense involved factors like death,
kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse. In addition, the TVPA required
restitution for victims of trafficking and forfeiture of traffickers'
assets and provided legal status and special benefits to aliens certified
as trafficking victims in the United States who are willing to assist law
enforcement efforts against traffickers.^11 (App. II identifies specific
statutory provisions relevant to investigating and prosecuting trafficking
in persons crimes.)
Responsibilities for pursuing trafficking crimes fall to multiple federal
agencies, including the FBI and ICE, which investigate these crimes;
CRT/CS, CEOS, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, which prosecute traffickers;
and other agencies within DHS and DOJ and components of DOL and DOS that
support U.S. efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons.
Figure 1 depicts these key agencies and their respective responsibilities
related to the investigation and prosecution of trafficking in persons
crimes.
^11Under the TVPA, certification that a victim is willing to assist law
enforcement is made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services after
consultation with the Attorney General. Certification is a prerequisite
for benefits only for victims 18 and older.
Figure 1: Federal Agencies with Primary Responsibilities for Investigating
and Prosecuting Trafficking in Persons Crimes
^aT visas grant eligible alien victims of trafficking nonimmigrant status
for up to 4 years, with the possibility of an extension.
In addition, to coordinate the implementation of the TVPA, the act
directed the President to establish an Interagency Task Force to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons and authorized the Secretary of State to
create the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to provide
assistance to the task force. In February 2002, the President issued an
executive order creating this cabinet-level task force and then in
December issued National Security Presidential Directive 22, which
identified trafficking in persons as an important national security issue
and directed federal agencies to strengthen their collective efforts,
capabilities, and coordination to support the goal of abolishing human
trafficking.^12 Subsequently, the 2003 TVPA reauthorization statutorily
established the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) to address
interagency policy, program, and planning issues regarding the TVPA's
implementation.^13 In addition, HSTC, which is staffed by detailees from
DHS, DOJ, DOS, and the intelligence community, among other places,
collects and disseminates intelligence information to build a
comprehensive picture of human trafficking.^14
Pursuing trafficking investigations and prosecutions also needs the
support of state and local law enforcement, who may be in the best
position to find trafficking victims because of their familiarity with
their respective jurisdictions, and nongovernmental organizations, from
whom victims may more readily seek assistance. To leverage these resources
to support federal efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking in
persons, DOJ designed, developed, and instituted a task force approach
that it presented during the first National Training Conference on Human
Trafficking: Rescuing Women and Children from Slavery, held in Tampa,
Florida, in July 2004. DOJ invited 21 teams of 20 federal, state, and
local law enforcement and nongovernmental service providers from
communities that it believed to have potential trafficking problems to
attend the conference. After the conference, the teams were expected to
work together on human trafficking in their respective communities. To
implement the approach, BJA, the DOJ component responsible for supporting
local, state, and tribal efforts to achieve safer communities, developed
and implemented a human trafficking law enforcement task force competitive
grant program. These grants were to be awarded to state or local police
agencies that work with the local U.S. Attorney's Office, federal law
enforcement entities, and nongovernmental organizations that may come into
contact with victims of trafficking. In addition, in spring 2003, the
FBI's Crimes Against Children Unit, DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
launched the Innocence Lost National Initiative in 14 U.S. cities where
the FBI field offices had identified a high incidence of trafficking of
U.S. children for commercial sex.
^12National Security Presidential Directive 22 (NSPD 22), signed on
December 16, 2002.
^13The SPOG had previously functioned under the name Senior Policy
Advisory Group.
^14In December 2006, the HSTC Steering Group approved amendments to the
HSTC Charter. DHS/ICE now nominates the Director. The nomination is still
subject to the approval of the Steering Group.
As trafficking in persons is a transnational crime, federal agencies may
need to obtain information and assistance directly from individual foreign
governments and through international law enforcement organizations in
order to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons cases in the
United States. Multilateral and extradition treaties provide the authority
for U.S. investigative and prosecutorial agencies to request information
and assistance on criminal cases, including trafficking in persons, from
approximately 175 individual foreign governments.^15 Working through ICE
and FBI personnel stationed at U.S. embassies, U.S. investigative and
prosecutorial agencies have obtained a broad spectrum of assistance from
individual foreign governments and with such assistance have successfully
prosecuted traffickers. This assistance has included obtaining documentary
evidence and corroborating witness testimony, protecting U.S. trafficking
victims' family members in a foreign country, apprehending fugitive
traffickers, and extraditing defendants. In addition, U.S. agencies may
obtain information through the International Criminal Police Organization,
Interpol, which serves as a conduit for a cooperative exchange of
information on criminal activities from its 186 member countries.^16
^15Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) are intended to enable law
enforcement to efficiently and effectively obtain evidence, information,
and testimony from abroad in a form admissible in courts of the requesting
state. Extradition treaties govern the preconditions for, and exceptions
to, the surrender of a fugitive from justice found in one country to
another country claiming criminal jurisdiction over the fugitive.
^16Located in Lyon, France, Interpol does not maintain a force of
international police officers or agents. The United States has
participated in Interpol since 1938, with the authority for that
participation resting with the Attorney General (22 U.S.C. S 263a).
Established in 1969, the Interpol-U.S. National Central Bureau, headed
since 2003 alternatively by officials from DOJ and DHS, is the central
point of contact for Interpol business in the United States (Memorandum of
Understanding between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the
U.S. Department of Justice Pertaining to U.S. Membership in the
International Criminal Police Organization [INTERPOL] and related matters,
May 2003).
Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Key Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons
Crimes
Subsequent to the enactment of the TVPA, federal agencies reported 139
prosecutions^17 and hundreds of investigations of trafficking for
commercial sex or labor as of June 2007. To support federal efforts to
identify victims and investigate and prosecute these crimes, agencies (1)
provided training to agency personnel to raise awareness and increase the
skills needed to identify victims and pursue trafficking investigations
and prosecutions, (2) carried out outreach and training to raise public
awareness of and skills in identifying trafficking victims, and (3)
engaged state and local knowledge and resources by funding state and local
trafficking in persons task forces and developing and disseminating a
model state law. In addition, to address their responsibilities related to
trafficking in persons crimes, some agencies have established special
units, agency-level goals, or plans or strategies. Federal investigative
and prosecutorial agencies have generally drawn from existing resources to
carry out these efforts (app. III provides information on resources).
Federal Agencies Reported a General Increase in Investigations and Prosecutions
of Trafficking in Persons Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001
With the enhanced tools available to federal investigators and prosecutors
as a result of the enactment of the TVPA, federal agencies reported a
general increase in the number of prosecutions and investigations of
trafficking in persons crimes. These data are an indicator of the level of
agency effort in pursuit of these crimes, since fiscal year 2001, although
they are limited by a number of factors. Trafficking crimes and their
victims are hidden and not readily identifiable. Traffickers may be
charged or convicted of other than trafficking crimes (e.g., kidnapping,
immigration violations, or money laundering) for strategic or technical
reasons. Also, limitations of agency data systems, which are primarily
case management systems, may not allow for the extraction of trafficking
data per se. In addition, availability of individual agencies' data may be
limited by factors pertinent to that agency; for example, ICE was only
established in 2003. Moreover, agency data are not comparable across
agencies nor can data on investigations be linked to data on prosecutions.
As a result of these limitations, however, the actual number of
investigations and prosecutions that have led to the incapacitation of
traffickers may be greater than the numbers that have been reported by
federal agencies.
^17This number does not include any CEOS/Innocence Lost National
Initiative prosecutions for trafficking of U.S. children for commercial
sex or trafficking prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorney's offices and not
reported to CRT/CS.
CRT/CS reported 139 prosecutions from fiscal year 2001 to June 14,
2007,^18 as compared with 19 cases for fiscal years 1995 to 2000. These
cases included 39 defined by CRT/CS as labor trafficking and 100 as
trafficking for commercial sexual activity. According to CRT/CS officials,
the number of prosecutions varies in any given year, because of
differences in the complexity of the cases. (See app. IV for illustrations
of the complexity of cases.). FBI and ICE provided data on numbers of
trafficking cases opened. The FBI's Civil Rights Unit reported opening a
total of 751 trafficking in persons cases between fiscal year 2001 and
April 5, 2007. However, these data do not include investigations involving
trafficking that are classified as other types of crime, for example,
alien smuggling cases that also involve trafficking in persons. ICE
reported opening a total of 899 trafficking in persons cases, for fiscal
year 2005 through May 31, 2007.^19 Both FBI and ICE data may include cases
involving investigations handled jointly by the two agencies. In addition,
as part of the Innocence Lost National Initiative, the FBI's Crimes
Against Children Unit reported 327 cases opened on trafficking of U.S.
children for commercial sex between fiscal year 2004 and June 5, 2007.
Appendix III presents additional data related to trafficking in persons
investigations and prosecutions; including arrests; indictments;
convictions; and restitution to the victims, as required under the TVPA,
where appropriate.
Federal Agencies Have Undertaken Training, Outreach, and State and Local
Initiatives to Support Federal Efforts to Investigate and Prosecute Trafficking
Crimes
National Security Presidential Directive 22 directed federal departments
and agencies to ensure that all appropriate offices within their
jurisdiction were fully trained to carry out their specific
responsibilities to combat trafficking, including interagency cooperation
and coordination on the investigation and prosecution of trafficking. FBI,
ICE, CRT/CS, CEOS, and DOL all reported taking steps to ensure that their
personnel received appropriate training, using a variety of means to do
so, including the following:
o training for new agents through the ICE and FBI training
academies;
o a Web-based training module, which is available to ICE agents
through ICE's intranet;^20
o guidance to ICE domestic and international field offices about
conducting outreach, training, and coalition building;
o training conference sessions by the FBI Civil Rights Unit and
information on trafficking in the FBI's civil rights reference
guide for FBI agents;
o training of U.S. Attorneys and other prosecutors on trafficking
in persons and trafficking of U.S. children for commercial sex, at
the National Advocacy Center;^21
o guidance to all U.S. Attorneys' Offices about prosecuting under
the TVPA, a tool kit for prosecutors, and a law guide, developed
by CRT/CS;
o training for victim-witness coordinators, who are the federal
government's liaisons to victims of federal crimes, and updating
the Attorney General's victim/witness guidelines to include
trafficking in persons;
o a nationwide televised human trafficking training initiative on
the Justice Television Network (JTN), initiated by CRT/CS in 2006
and continuing in 2007, transmitted from the National Advocacy
Center to all 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices. These offices and
BJA-funded state and local human trafficking task forces hosted
members of the law enforcement and nongovernmental organization
communities to view these programs; and
o a week-long seminar on investigating and prosecuting cases
involving child sex trafficking, developed by CEOS, FBI, and the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for the joint
training of state and federal law enforcement agencies,
prosecutors, and social service providers in targeted cities. This
seminar is given multiple times each year.
^18This number does not include any CEOS/Innocence Lost National
Initiative prosecutions for trafficking of U.S. children for commercial
sex or trafficking prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorney's offices and not
reported to CRT/CS.
^19ICE data were for a more limited time period, because the agency, which
was established in 2003, had initial problems in capturing trafficking in
persons data.
In addition, to help identify victims of trafficking and support federal
efforts to pursue trafficking investigations, agencies have used a variety
of means to extend outreach and training to state and local law
enforcement, nongovernmental organizations, and the general public. ICE
developed laminated wallet-size cards, in five languages, identifying the
differences between human smuggling and human trafficking as well as red
flag indicators for human trafficking and also developed a police roll
call/muster DVD describing human trafficking. CRT/CS publishes a
newsletter on trafficking, available on the DOJ Web site, and in
collaboration with other federal agencies and DOJ components, prepared and
published the Report on Activities to Combat Trafficking: Fiscal Years
2001-2005. DOJ's Office of Legal Policy prepares the Attorney General's
annual report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat trafficking, as
required by the TVPA of 2003, and the annual assessment of those efforts.
DOJ also established, and subsequently permanently funded, a toll-free
Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Complaint Line in February
2000 to provide a means for victims, witnesses, and others to report
potential trafficking matters to law enforcement, get information, and
obtain referrals to services in their area.^22 In 2004 and 2006, federal
agencies sponsored and participated in national conferences on human
trafficking in Tampa, Florida, and New Orleans, Louisiana,
respectively.^23 In 2006, CRT/CS, with the Attorney General, produced the
film Give Us Freedom: Liberty and Justice for Victims of Modern Day
Slavery.
^20ICE agents had to take a test to show that they had completed this
training. On the basis of this test information, ICE headquarters
officials told us that they believed that all agents have completed the
training.
^21The National Advocacy Center is operated by the Department of Justice
and Executive Office for United States Attorneys.
To further U.S. investigations and prosecutions of trafficking in persons
crimes, federal agencies have also fostered antitrafficking efforts at the
state and local levels. For example, federal agencies have sought to
engage state and local law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations
by funding the establishment of state and local trafficking in persons
task forces that bring together local law enforcement, federal law
enforcement, a U.S. Attorney, and nongovernmental victim service
providers. In addition, to expand antitrafficking law enforcement
authority and promote a uniform national legal strategy to combat human
trafficking, DOJ developed a model state law, available on the DOJ Web
site. According to DOJ, at the time of its initial dissemination in 2004,
4 states--Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Washington--had laws against
trafficking in persons. As of June 2007, 31 states had enacted
antitrafficking in persons legislation.^24
^22The toll-free number of the Trafficking in Persons and Worker
Exploitation Complaint Line is 1-888-428-7581. It is operational between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Operators have access to
interpreters and can talk with callers in their own language.
^23The 2006 conference was mandated by the 2005 TVPA reauthorization act.
Individual Federal Agencies Have Established Special Units, Agency-level Goals,
or Plans or Strategies to Address Trafficking in Persons Responsibilities
National Security Presidential Directive 22 directed all federal agencies
to develop and promulgate plans to implement the directive by March 2003.
Plans for DOJ, DHS,^25 DOL, and DOS enumerate activities relevant to the
investigation and prosecution of trafficking in persons. Additionally,
some agencies have undertaken various steps to address their respective
responsibilities related to the investigation and prosecution of
trafficking in persons, including establishing special units that focus on
trafficking in persons, agency-level goals, or plans or strategies. In
doing so, each of these agencies has defined its responsibilities for
pursuing trafficking crimes in accordance with its broader agency mission.
Both ICE and CRT/CS have established specialized units focused on
trafficking in persons. The ICE Office of Investigations' Human Smuggling
and Trafficking Unit, consisting of a unit chief, with a staff consisting
of program managers who oversee programmatic and operational issues
globally, and victim witness coordinators, oversees ICE's efforts to
identify criminal smuggling and trafficking organizations, prioritizes
investigations based on risk factors, coordinates field office
investigations into those targeted organizations, and coordinates victim
assistance through approximately 300 of ICE's collateral-duty victim
witness coordinators. ^26 On January 31, 2007, the Attorney General and
the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division announced the
formation of a special Human Trafficking Prosecution (HTP) Unit within
CRT/CS. According to CRT/CS officials, the unit is to continue to play a
role in coordinating intra-DOJ and interagency trafficking efforts (e.g.,
with ICE); develop new strategies to increase human trafficking
investigations and prosecutions throughout the nation; enhance DOJ's
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking crimes by pursuing cases
that are multijurisdictional or involve financial crimes; and also
continue to engage in training, technical assistance, and outreach
initiatives to federal, state, and local law enforcement and
nongovernmental organizations.
^24The states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
^25DHS was established in March 2003.
^26ICE defines collateral duty as an additional part-time duty assigned
outside the agent's or officer's regular duties, as the need arises.
The primary investigative agencies for trafficking in persons have laid
out goals and activities for combating this crime. The top goal of ICE's
trafficking in persons efforts--to disrupt and dismantle criminal
organizations involved in trafficking, including intelligence gathering on
these organizations--is aligned with DHS strategic goals of assessing
vulnerabilities and mitigating threats to the homeland. In addition, ICE's
trafficking goals of seizing assets of criminal organizations and rescuing
and protecting victims of trafficking follow ICE's top goal. The FBI's
Strategic Plan 2004-2009 identifies investigations of trafficking in
persons crimes as a rising priority under its responsibility to enforce
civil rights protections. In addition, the FBI Civil Rights Unit specifies
the strengthening of its intelligence base on trafficking activity as a
top priority among its programmatic goals and emphasizes coordination with
other law enforcement entities and partnerships with nongovernmental
organizations in pursuing trafficking investigations.
Furthermore, both ICE and FBI have disseminated guidance on handling
trafficking cases to their agents in the field. In December 2006, the ICE
Director of Investigations disseminated to Special Agents in Charge (SACs)
and ICE personnel assigned to U.S. embassies the ICE Office of
Investigations' new strategy document for combating trafficking in
persons, entitled ICE Trafficking In Persons Strategy, or ICE TIPS. ICE
TIPS emphasizes outreach and education on ICE's role in trafficking
investigations and ability to issue Continued Presence, a mechanism for
authorizing victims without legal immigration status to remain in the
United States; collaborations with other law enforcement entities and
nongovernmental service providers, including task force participation; and
performance evaluation to focus and refine ICE's efforts. In May 2007,
additional guidance from the ICE Office of Investigations and the ICE
Office of International Affairs was sent to SACs and ICE personnel
assigned to U.S. embassies overseas. The guidance provided direction on
outreach, training, coordination, and coalition building and mandated
periodic reporting of efforts to ICE headquarters. The FBI's guidance is
contained in its Civil Rights Program Reference Guide, the fiscal year
Civil Rights Program Plan, and memorandums to the field. The fiscal year
2007 Civil Rights Program Plan provides information similar to that
contained in ICE TIPS and encourages working partnerships with other law
enforcement entities and nongovernmental service providers, including
providing training to these groups.
As the lead prosecutorial agency for trafficking in persons, CRT/CS
identified three levels of strategic planning for its trafficking efforts.
DOJ's Strategic Plan (Fiscal Years 2003-2008) lays out broad goals and
performance measures. Specifically, CRT/CS's efforts on trafficking in
persons fall under goal two--enforce federal laws and represent the rights
and interests of the American people, strategic objective 2.4--to uphold
the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans and protect
vulnerable members of society. According to the strategy, the Civil Rights
Division intends to protect new immigrants to America by, among other
things, vigorously prosecuting those who exploit their vulnerability
through trafficking in persons, including increasing efforts to combat the
criminal trafficking of children and other vulnerable victims, through
more intensified efforts and interagency coordination. To achieve DOJ's
strategic goals and objectives, CRT/CS's fiscal year 2007 internal
priorities document lays out activities to be undertaken in three
areas--investigation and prosecution; outreach and training; and policy
development, including intergovernmental coordination. In addition, DOJ
communicates direction and guidance on handling trafficking in persons
cases through internal DOJ memorandums between CRT/CS and U.S. Attorneys,
including guidance to U.S. Attorneys on how to prosecute trafficking
cases, memorandums between CRT/CS and the FBI, and memorandums between DOJ
and other federal agencies.^27
In addition, DOL's Wage and Hour Division has an internal plan that
addresses its role in federal interagency trafficking efforts. The plan
presents current goals and measures for the division's involvement with
human trafficking task forces in investigations, as appropriate with its
mission, and in assisting trafficking victims in securing restitution, as
well as long-term goals and measures for increasing these efforts.
^27For example, DOJ, DHS, and the Department of Health and Human Services
have a memorandum of understanding on the basic functions and
interrelationships of the departments as they relate to certification of
persons as victims of a severe form of trafficking under the TVPA.
Federal Agencies Have Coordinated on Individual Trafficking Cases, but a
Strategic Framework Could Help Further and Sustain Interagency Collaboration
Recognizing that investigating and prosecuting trafficking cases can be
complex and multifaceted activities, federal agencies have taken steps to
coordinate their efforts to leverage the expertise and resources required
to resolve these crimes. Coordination of investigations and prosecutions
has usually occurred as determined by the needs of the individual cases
and personal relationships established between law enforcement officials
across agencies. However, DOJ and DHS officials acknowledged the need to
expand the scope of their efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking
crimes by, for example, undertaking proactive measures to identify
trafficking victims and multijurisdictional and international trafficking
in persons investigations and prosecutions. Pursuing such efforts requires
more strategic collaboration among agencies, since no one agency can carry
out these efforts alone. Our prior work has shown that a strategic
framework that would include, at a minimum, a common outcome and mutually
reinforcing strategies; agreed-on roles and responsibilities; and
compatible polices, procedures, and other means to operate across agency
boundaries can help agencies enhance and expand collaboration on issues
that are national in scope and cross agency jurisdictions.^28 However, the
mechanisms that are currently in place to facilitate interagency
cooperation on human trafficking do not address the greater collaboration
needed for the expanded level of effort to investigate and prosecute
trafficking crimes. Establishing such a strategic framework to investigate
and prosecute trafficking in persons crimes, as developed by federal
agencies to address the unique challenges posed by these crimes, could
help federal agencies enhance and sustain the collaboration needed to
expand their efforts to combat trafficking crimes.
Federal Agencies Have Coordinated Trafficking Efforts on a Case-by-Case Basis
According to DOJ and DHS officials, in practice, agency coordination of
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking in persons has occurred on
a case-by-case basis. CRT/CS, CEOS, ICE, and FBI officials acknowledged
that investigating and prosecuting trafficking in persons crimes made it
necessary for federal agencies to work with one another and with state and
local law enforcement, who were often the first ones to discover possible
evidence of trafficking, and with nongovernmental organizations that
provided assistance to the victims. Federal officials emphasized that they
knew whom to call; for example, the victim-witness coordinators in ICE and
CRT/CS know each other; ICE and FBI investigators knew the names of
prosecutors in CRT/CS.
^28See [35]GAO-06-15 .
ICE and FBI officials explained that they sometimes worked joint
investigations or investigated different aspects of a case. For example,
in one case, while ICE agents rescued the victims in one location, the FBI
was investigating related brothel operations in other cities. Through
their detailees to the HSTC, ICE and FBI may determine whether the two
agencies may be working on a related case. Agents in the field may also
contact their counterparts at other agencies to ascertain whether they are
working on a similar case. DOL Wage and Hour Division officials told us
that if they identified a potential trafficking situation, they would
notify the FBI and the respective U.S. Attorney and the FBI might take
over responsibility for the case, as DOL's Wage and Hour Division does not
carry out criminal investigations related to trafficking in persons. In
addition, victim witness coordinators across DOJ and DHS are in regular
contact with each other to ensure victim care and services from the point
of victim identification through investigation and prosecution.
Investigative and prosecutorial agencies also work with nongovernmental
agencies. For example, ICE officials said that they shared information
with nongovernmental organization interviewers who helped the
investigators determine which potential trafficking victims were actual
victims and which were "victim enforcers" who were swept up in the raid
but worked for the traffickers. CRT/CS and U.S. Attorney's Offices
prosecute the cases developed by the investigative agencies. In addition,
under the auspices of the Innocence Lost National Initiative, FBI
investigators from its Crimes Against Children Unit, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, and CEOS prosecutors have joined
forces with state and local law enforcement through the establishment of
formal or ad hoc task forces in 23 cities across the country, as a
grassroots operation to work on cases of trafficking of U.S. children for
commercial sex.
Two noteworthy trafficking cases illustrate the breadth and diversity of
coordination and cooperation that occurs in pursuit of these crimes. For
example, the prosecution of Kil Soo Lee brought together FBI
investigators, DOL investigators from the Wage and Hour Division and the
Occupational and Safety and Health Administration, CRT/CS prosecutors, and
some nongovernmental organizations and resulted in the largest trafficking
case brought to date. In a separate case, Gerardo Flores Carreto and Josue
Flores Carreto were each sentenced to 50 years in prison in a case
involving coordination among ICE, DOJ, international nongovernmental
organizations, as well as the Mexican government. (See app. IV.)
In addition to interacting as needs emerge, officials told us that various
law enforcement procedures and protocols are in place to foster
coordination. Upon initiating a trafficking in persons investigation, ICE
and the FBI notify the local U.S. Attorney to determine if enough evidence
exists to pursue a federal trafficking in persons prosecution. Moreover,
U.S. Attorneys are required to report civil rights cases, including
trafficking in persons cases, to CRT/CS, which then determines whether to
accept the U.S. Attorney's staffing recommendation. In addition, DHS, DOJ,
and the Department of Health and Human Services signed a memorandum of
understanding that lays out the basic responsibilities and functions of
the departments as they relate to the certification of victims'
eligibility for certain federal benefits.
Federal agencies have also developed tools to facilitate interagency
coordination and even coordination with state and local law enforcement
and nongovernmental organizations in trafficking cases, usually on a
case-by-case basis. According to DOJ and DHS officials, training is
provided to these stakeholders prior to raids; operations manuals are
prepared both for law enforcement and victim-witness coordinators.
A Strategic Framework Could Be Important to Implementing Expanded Approaches to
Combating Trafficking
Although federal agencies have successfully coordinated on a case-by-case
basis to investigate and prosecute trafficking crimes, officials described
their approach to trafficking investigations and prosecutions as usually
being reactive and acknowledged the need for additional proactive
approaches to enhance interagency efforts to investigate and prosecute
trafficking crimes. DOJ and DHS senior officials identified the need to
expand the scope of efforts, including taking proactive measures to
identify trafficking victims (e.g., expanding outreach to additional law
enforcement agencies and nongovernmental organizations) and pursuing
multijurisdictional and international trafficking in persons
investigations and prosecutions. These efforts require more strategic
collaboration among agencies, since no one agency has the authority to
carry out these efforts alone. However, the current coordinating
mechanisms and National Security Presidential Directive 22 do not address
the greater collaboration needed for this level of expanded effort, and
individual agency plans only address individual agency efforts--none of
which is linked to a common governmentwide outcome to address the
investigation and prosecution of trafficking crimes. Additionally,
differing perceptions among agencies exist on leadership and roles and
responsibilities surrounding some of these expanded efforts.
As our previous work has shown, a strategic framework that includes
agencies working together toward a common outcome with mutually
reinforcing strategies, agreed-on roles and responsibilities, and
compatible policies and procedures can help enhance and sustain
collaboration among federal agencies dealing with issues, such as
trafficking in persons, that are national in scope and cross agency
jurisdictions.^29 In light of the unique challenges posed by trafficking
in persons investigations and prosecutions, we acknowledge that a
framework to address the investigation and prosecution of trafficking
crimes needs to be flexible and incorporate different types of
collaborative mechanisms. The agencies involved would determine the
specifics of the elements enumerated above, any additional elements to be
included in the framework, and the structures for developing and
implementing such a framework.
Federal Agencies Identified Need for Expanded Approaches
DOJ and DHS officials acknowledged the need to expand the scope of U.S.
efforts to combat trafficking crimes by developing proactive approaches to
identify trafficking victims (e.g., expanding outreach to non-law
enforcement agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other law
enforcement agencies), pursuing multijurisdictional and even international
trafficking in persons investigations and prosecutions, and establishing
mechanisms for consistent communications and information sharing among
agencies.
Because trafficking victims are hidden and difficult to find, but are also
the primary source of evidence of trafficking crimes, agency officials
underscored the need to develop proactive approaches to identify
trafficking victims in order to increase investigations and prosecutions.
While current efforts to pursue trafficking crimes have drawn on the
support of other federal agencies that do not have specific law
enforcement functions or have benefited from the collaboration between law
enforcement and nongovernmental organizations, officials expressed the
desire to expand these efforts. For example, CRT/CS officials told us that
they would like to prosecute more labor trafficking cases, but these
situations were difficult to identify. While CRT/CS has worked with DOL's
Wage and Hour Division on trafficking cases, such as the Kil Soo Lee
prosecution, they hoped to work with DOL to proactively identify potential
trafficking situations, possibly during Wage and Hour's self-initiated
investigations of low-wage work sites. However, DOL officials said that to
do so, the agencies would need to develop an approach that included
regional planning and further training of DOL's program managers. This
level of collaboration and planning could benefit from mutually
reinforcing strategies or a joint strategy to identify additional victims
of labor trafficking.
^29See [36]GAO-06-15 .
In addition, the main goal of ICE's outreach efforts to state and local
law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations, and foreign partners is
identifying victims. While there are several jurisdictions across the
country that are currently combating trafficking crimes in their
communities, DOJ and DHS officials recognized the need to expand their
outreach and training efforts to other law enforcement and non-law
enforcement entities to identify victims and increase the number of
investigations and prosecutions. Currently, coordination among agencies on
training and outreach is largely episodic. However, developing
collaborative outreach and training strategies to incorporate state and
local law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations, and foreign
partners, among others, could allow agencies to expand their efforts while
making the best use of agencies' resources.
DOJ officials also told us that they hoped to expand federal
antitrafficking efforts by pursuing multijurisdictional and international
investigations and prosecutions. For example, CRT/CS officials told us
that they were striving to enhance investigations and prosecutions of
significant trafficking in persons and slavery cases, such as
multijurisdictional cases and those involving financial crimes. To do so,
CRT/CS has engaged in training activities for federal prosecutors across
the country to institutionalize ways to combat trafficking and allow
CRT/CS attorneys to focus on multijurisdictional cases. However, CRT/CS
has also been actively involved in the training of investigators, task
forces, and foreign officials, as well as carrying out their
responsibilities to prosecute trafficking cases. Folding CRT/CS's training
and outreach efforts into a broader and more collaborative training and
outreach strategy could disperse responsibility for training to other
federal partners who are also engaging in training and outreach efforts.
The DOJ officials identified the need to establish mechanisms for
consistent communication and information sharing. While FBI officials said
that case-by-case coordination between some field offices on individual
trafficking cases was good, they said that there was also a lack of
consistency in information sharing and communication among field offices.
DOJ officials also cited the need to maintain information in a central
repository to enhance tracking of the movements of traffickers and
victims. For example, CEOS identified the lack of such a repository of
information on trafficking and an institutionalized policy on information
sharing as factors that can inhibit trafficking investigations. Working
collaboratively with counterparts in the field and across agencies at the
national level to establish mechanisms for consistent communication and
information sharing could be incorporated into a strategic framework.
Additionally, FBI and ICE officials pointed to the need to pursue
information about trafficking organizations back to their country of
origin and identify trafficking patterns in order to enhance efforts to
dismantle trafficking organizations. However, HSTC officials told us that
the intelligence community is not collecting as much information on
trafficking as it is on other issues, such as human smuggling. HSTC
officials also said that if HSTC could increase its analytical capability,
it would be able to expand its current collection and dissemination of
intelligence information on trafficking to develop more products and in so
doing provide a more valuable resource to law enforcement and the
intelligence community, among others. CRT/CS officials told us they are
working with the FBI to obtain information that would help identify
trafficking networks. With intelligence information from traditional
intelligence sources being limited, agencies could work toward achieving
their goal of tracking trafficking patterns and dismantling trafficking
organizations by establishing collaborative practices to obtain needed
information to support proactive investigations of trafficking crimes.
Expanded Approaches Can Be Linked to a Common Outcome with Mutually
Reinforcing Strategies
A strategic framework could promote a collaborative effort to define and
articulate a common federal outcome for investigations and prosecutions of
trafficking crimes. Agencies have identified agency-level goals and
proactive approaches to expand their current efforts to combat trafficking
crimes, but none of these approaches is linked to a governmentwide outcome
defined by the key federal agencies that investigate and prosecute
trafficking crimes. Our previous work on effective interagency
collaboration has demonstrated that having a clearly defined
governmentwide outcome could help align specific goals across agencies.
While National Security Presidential Directive 22 instructed federal
agencies to develop and promulgate plans to implement the directive,
agencies primarily developed lists of activities that indicated individual
agency efforts, and the plans, taken together, did not cut across agency
boundaries and lead toward a common governmentwide outcome. As we have
illustrated in our work related to national strategies to combat
terrorism, a governmentwide outcome could hinge on an ideal "end-state"
followed by a logical hierarchy of major goals, subordinate objectives,
and specific activities to achieve results.^30 Gathering intelligence on
traffickers, dismantling trafficking rings, increasing prosecutions, and
rescuing victims can be activities linked to broader objectives to achieve
a common outcome for investigations and prosecutions of trafficking
crimes, but at this time, agencies have not collectively articulated what
that outcome might be. The scope of U.S. governmentwide efforts to
investigate and prosecute trafficking crimes can be linked to a common
outcome to provide an accountability framework.
Our prior work has shown that without a clearly defined outcome, it may be
difficult to overcome significant differences in agency missions,
cultures, and established ways of doing business. For example, pursuing
trafficking investigations and prosecutions involves collaboration between
law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations that typically do not
work together. Identifying a unified federal outcome for investigations
and prosecutions of trafficking crimes could help align the goals and
sustain the support of these agencies and organizations, thereby enhancing
investigations and prosecutions.
Our work has shown that after identifying a common outcome, collaborating
agencies need to establish strategies that work in concert with those of
their partners or are joint in nature. Such strategies help in aligning
the partner agencies' activities, core processes, and resources to
accomplish the common outcome. Some individual agencies have developed
their own strategies to combat trafficking and implement the proactive
approaches to expand current activities, but strategies have not been
linked to a common governmentwide outcome for investigations and
prosecutions of trafficking crimes. Since no single agency is undertaking
these initiatives alone, mutually reinforcing strategies could help
agencies better align their activities and resources to accomplish a
common outcome.
Roles and Responsibilities Can Be Clearly Defined through a Strategic
Framework
As federal agencies expand their approaches to investigating and
prosecuting trafficking crimes, a strategic framework could assist in
clarifying respective roles and responsibilities. Such a framework could
be important to ensure that agencies understand who will do what and help
to reconcile differing perceptions of leadership that exist among the
agencies on combating trafficking crimes.
^30See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in
National Strategies Related to Terrorism, [37]GAO-04-408T (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
Our prior work has shown that generally agencies can enhance their
collaboration by working together to define and agree on their respective
roles and responsibilities, including how the collaborative effort will be
led. Nonetheless, existing interagency collaborative mechanisms are not
positioned to support the greater collaboration needed to coordinate
expanded U.S. efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons.
The Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, the SPOG,
and SPOG working groups facilitate governmentwide policy on human
trafficking. However, operational coordination on investigations and
prosecutions of trafficking in persons rests with criminal justice
personnel and currently occurs on a case-by-case basis. HSTC is an
information clearinghouse and facilitates information sharing among
investigative and prosecutorial agencies working on trafficking. HSTC is
also available to assist agencies to avoid duplication of efforts by
querying an array of participating agency databases to determine if more
than one agency has an ongoing interest or open investigation on a
specific target. The Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task
Force was involved in both policy and operations, but at the time of our
review, DOL told us it understood that the task force was no longer
functioning, and CRT/CS officials said they were in the process of
reinvigorating DOJ's relationship with DOL on this issue.
Furthermore, developing a strategic framework could help reconcile
differing perceptions of who is in charge in coordinating antitrafficking
investigations and prosecutions. Specifically, CRT/CS and investigative
agencies perceived the interagency leadership role in pursuing trafficking
crimes differently. CRT/CS officials told us that its newly formed Human
Trafficking Prosecution Unit was positioned to take the leadership role in
coordinating trafficking efforts across the federal agencies because
investigative agencies historically work with CRT/CS prosecutors to
complete cases. While FBI officials acknowledged CRT/CS as the leader on
trafficking in persons, they also said that leadership needs to cut across
agencies, since no one agency carries out trafficking cases alone. ICE
officials said that agencies are all equal partners in the effort to
combat trafficking and that while CRT/CS may take the lead on
prosecutions, the investigative agencies each take the lead on their own
investigations, or work jointly on joint investigations, until they are
handed to prosecutors. ICE officials also did not perceive the need for
leadership beyond the SPOG for U.S. policy on trafficking, but
acknowledged that the SPOG did not have oversight for investigations and
prosecutions because of law enforcement sensitive matters. ICE officials
suggested that should a problem with investigations and prosecutions
arise, the SPOG could create a subcommittee to deal with these issues.
However, according to DOJ officials, because investigative and
prosecutorial agencies are governed at the operational level by
confidentiality rules (e.g., grand jury secrecy) and limitations on
sharing law enforcement sensitive information, the SPOG or its working
groups were not appropriate vehicles for leading collaborative operational
efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons. Since no one
agency will be able to accomplish the steps identified to further U.S.
efforts to combat trafficking on its own, collaboration among agencies
will need to go beyond the current case-by-case coordination and views on
leadership.
Establishing Compatible Policies, Procedures, and Other Means to Operate
across Agency Boundaries
Our prior work has shown that a strategic framework could also foster
efforts to devise compatible standards, policies, procedures, and
information systems that will be used in collaborative efforts for a range
of topics across federal agencies. As agencies move forward in their
efforts to expand current activities to investigate and prosecute
trafficking crimes, such as tracking trafficking cases or addressing the
limitations posed on current coordinating mechanisms, agencies could work
jointly and consult with other stakeholders to determine what information
on trafficking could be collected and shared as policies and procedures
for developing information systems are being planned and created.
Additionally, agencies working together to establish policies and
procedures to provide guidance on how to achieve maximum coordination and
cooperation across agencies to investigate and prosecute trafficking
crimes, including the exchange of information, would address current
inconsistencies that exist among the field offices of federal
investigators.
BJA Has Helped Support Federally Funded State and Local Human Trafficking Law
Enforcement Task Forces, but Lacks a Plan to Identify and Focus Technical
Assistance Needs
To help coordinate U.S. efforts to identify trafficking victims, get
needed services to victims of trafficking, and investigate and prosecute
trafficking in persons crimes in communities across the country, BJA
established a program to fund state and local law enforcement human
trafficking task forces. Each task force was to develop a strategy to
raise public awareness, identify more victims, and establish protocols
among government agencies and service providers and to meet related
performance measures. Since 2004, BJA has awarded grants of up to $450,000
for a 3-year period to each of 42 task forces. BJA reported using its
general funds to support some technical assistance to the task forces
(e.g., sponsoring the development of a train-the-trainer curriculum on
human trafficking and funding a national conference) and taking further
steps to help respond to task force technical assistance needs. However,
task force members we contacted and DOJ officials pointed to continued and
additional technical assistance needs. BJA does not have a technical
assistance plan for its human trafficking grant program. Our previous work
has shown the need for agencies that administer grants or funding to state
and local entities to implement a plan that focuses technical assistance
and training efforts on areas of greatest need. BJA officials told us that
they recognized the need for a technical assistance plan for its human
trafficking initiative and had begun to prepare a plan to provide
additional and proactive technical assistance to the task forces.
BJA Funds State and Local Law Enforcement Human Trafficking Task Forces to
Support Investigations and Prosecutions of Trafficking Crimes
In 2004, BJA established a program to fund state and local law enforcement
human trafficking task forces to help support U.S. efforts to identify
trafficking victims and investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons
crimes in communities across the country. Working with OVC, which was
already providing assistance to victim service providers serving
trafficking victims, BJA solicited applications from state and local law
enforcement for fiscal year 2004, and then again for fiscal years 2005 and
2006. Each task force was to develop a strategy that included the
following: (1) a memorandum of agreement outlining the respective roles
and responsibilities of the participating agencies and ensuring
coordination and involvement of the local U.S. Attorney; (2) training
materials for first responding officers and investigators, including
written protocols and resource manuals to enhance coordination and
information/resource sharing among law enforcement and victim service
providers to identify and assist human trafficking victims; (3) distinct
protocols for resource referral and service provisions for U.S. versus
alien victims of human trafficking; and (4) definition of the role of law
enforcement and service provider partners in training others in the
community. The task forces were to meet specific program goals and
performance measures focused on identification of and assistance to
victims, training of law enforcement in the identification of victims,
public awareness and outreach, and identification and collaboration with
community stakeholders. Grantees were required to collect and report data
on performance measures, including the number of potential and assisted
trafficking victims; DHS applications made to obtain trafficking victims'
benefits; law enforcement personnel and others trained; presentations
given to law enforcement and the general public; service providers,
community support groups, and community education groups identified; and
memorandums of agreement signed.
Under its human trafficking task force initiative, BJA has funded a total
of 42 law enforcement task forces on human trafficking--22 in fiscal year
2004 and 10 in each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.^31 Each task force
grant award was for up to $450,000 for a period of 3 years. BJA reported
awarding a total of $17,324,182 to the 42 task forces. The core membership
of each task force includes federal, state, and local law enforcement; the
U.S. Attorney's Office; and nongovernmental organizations. However, the
task forces vary, as evidenced by those we contacted, with respect to
which federal agencies participate--FBI, ICE, DOL, or others; the number
of state or local law enforcement agencies involved--a single or multiple
police departments and sheriff's offices; and the number of
nongovernmental groups. As shown in figure 3, the 42 task forces are
located in 25 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia.^32
^31According to BJA and OVC officials, the task force grants are funded
with a portion of the funds appropriated under the TVPA to develop,
expand, or strengthen victim service programs for victims of trafficking.
The agency's goal in using a portion of the funds in this way is to make
services available to more victims by identifying more victims and then
connecting them with needed services.
^32The BJA task forces are not the universe of human trafficking task
forces directed toward law enforcement. For example, Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh also have task forces. In addition, in 23 cities formal or
informal task forces have been established as part of the Innocence Lost
National Initiative on the trafficking of U.S. children for commercial
sex. However the 42 BJA-funded task forces are considered to be part of
the overall federal effort to investigate and prosecute trafficking in
persons.
Figure 2: BJA-Funded Human Trafficking Law Enforcement Task Forces
BJA Has Provided Some Technical Assistance to the Task Forces
To support its grant programs, BJA can provide technical assistance to any
justice-related state, tribal, or local agency or organization through
on-site and off-site technical assistance; peer-to-peer information
exchange and mentoring; publication drafting and dissemination;
information sharing; aid with developing conferences, workshops, and
training events; and curriculum development. According to BJA officials,
technical assistance is available to human trafficking task forces, but
BJA did not receive any specific funds to support its technical assistance
to the human trafficking law enforcement task forces.^33 BJA reported
using $1,433,000 of its general funds to finance the development of a
train-the-trainer curriculum on human trafficking, deliver training
sessions using the curriculum, and fund the national conference on human
trafficking held in New Orleans in October 2006.^34
The train-the-trainer curriculum, prepared by the Institute for
Intergovernmental Research to promote law enforcement awareness of human
trafficking in the United States, was completed in October 2004. The
curriculum included CD-ROMs with PowerPoint slides, instructor notes, and
lists of additional resources. It addressed the following topics:
introduction to human trafficking; legal overview; investigative
considerations, including investigative techniques for trafficking cases;
the roles of victim service providers in trafficking cases; immigration
issues; interagency cooperation; and engaging the community. The
curriculum was used to train trainers, including task force members, at
BJA-sponsored train-the-trainer sessions held in California, Florida, and
Illinois between November and April 2005, and a Human Trafficking
Conference in Houston, Texas, in February 2005. According to BJA, some
task force members attended the sessions and all 22 task forces funded at
that time were represented at the Houston conference. The trainers were to
use the curriculum to train law enforcement in their respective
communities.
BJA worked with other DOJ components, DHS, and DOL, among others, to put
on the national trafficking conference in New Orleans. The plenary and
breakout sessions provided information on various aspects to
trafficking--investigative strategies, victims services, and interviewing
witnesses, among others. According to DOJ officials, sessions were
specifically held for the task forces in addition to the public conference
program. During these sessions, task force participants discussed such
issues as collaboration and reporting progress using BJA's performance
measures.
^33The TVPA allows 2 percent of the funds appropriated for the grants for
victim service programs for trafficking victims to be set aside for
training and technical assistance each fiscal year. For fiscal years 2002
through 2006, DOJ received approximately $10 million for the TVPA grants,
which means that approximately $200,000 (less rescissions and other
allocations) were available for each fiscal year for training and
technical assistance. OVC awarded Safe Horizon, a nongovernmental
organization, a grant to provide technical assistance to victim service
providers funded under the program. According to OVC, Safe Horizon was
given a total of $596,595 for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004. OVC
officials also told us that OVC and BJA expect to award remaining
technical assistance funds from subsequent fiscal years to provide
technical assistance to both OVC and BJA human trafficking grantees. In
the interim, Safe Horizon does provide some technical assistance to task
force grantees, according to OVC officials.
^34BJA reported that it relied on funding from deobligated accounts at one
time made available by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General.
In addition, BJA reported further steps taken to respond to the technical
assistance needs of the task forces. According to BJA officials, task
force grantees could request technical assistance by submitting the form
found on the BJA Web site. BJA also reported if the data submitted by a
task force in its semiannual report indicated the existence of performance
problems, BJA would make routine calls to the particular task force to
help resolve the issues or obtain additional information so that BJA could
work with CRT/CS, OVC, or the appropriate U.S. Attorney's Office on these
matters. Also, having recognized that some task forces were experiencing
difficulties in collecting and reporting data on its performance measures
(e.g., identifying the number of trafficking victims), BJA sponsored a
special session on this topic during the New Orleans conference. According
to BJA officials, after the conference it distributed to the task forces
the materials used during the session. Furthermore, between 2006 and 2007,
BJA, sometimes working in conjunction with OVC, conducted site visits to 8
of the 42 task forces. The site visits provided the opportunity for BJA to
identify challenges task forces were having, such as developing or
implementing training for law enforcement, that might be addressed through
training or technical assistance. In addition, CRT/CS reported that, in
coordination with BJA, its attorneys had provided technical assistance and
training to all but 8 of the task forces.
Continuing and Additional Task Force Technical Assistance Needs Were Identified
DOJ officials and task force members we interviewed identified continuing
and additional task force technical assistance and training needs. BJA
said that it was aware of this need from weekly phone conversations with
task force members; site visits to task force jurisdictions; and
conversations with U.S. Attorneys, CRT/CS, and OVC. Continuing and
additional technical assistance needs identified by DOJ officials and task
forces we contacted included (1) substantive training about trafficking
crimes and trafficking victims and (2) technical assistance and training
to help task forces develop the components in their strategies required
under their grants.
DOJ officials and members of task forces we contacted suggested a range of
training on substantive topics related to human trafficking. They
acknowledged that there would always be a need for basic training on
trafficking issues, as new task forces were formed, existing task forces
reached out to new participants, and individuals participating in the task
forces changed over time. In addition, to enhance the capacity of the task
forces to support investigations and prosecutions of trafficking crimes,
they identified the need for advanced training on such topics as seizing
and forfeiting traffickers' assets, techniques to facilitate law
enforcement and nongovernmental organizations working together to
interview trafficking victims, and techniques for interviewing child
victims of sex trafficking. To expand their ability to identify more
trafficking victims, DOJ officials and some task forces we contacted
pointed to the need for training of other agency personnel, such as other
law enforcement, hospital workers, and social services personnel, who in
the course of their jobs might come into contact with trafficking victims.
They also indicated that it was sometimes necessary to tailor training and
technical assistance to specific populations. For example, training could
be focused on potentially vulnerable populations within the community
where a task force was located (e.g., farm labor, restaurant workers,
domestic service workers, alien victims, and U.S. children trafficked for
commercial sex) or trafficking populations that have typically been more
difficult to find, specifically victims of labor trafficking.
By requiring each task force grantee to lay out a strategy to raise public
awareness of trafficking, identify more victims, and establish protocols
among government agencies and service providers, BJA demonstrated its
awareness of the need for the task forces to have a mechanism to
coordinate activities and operations in order to achieve program goals.
Task force members we interviewed provided examples of the challenges they
had confronted in addressing the various elements of their task force
strategy. For example, some task force members said that after 2 years of
BJA funding they were still trying to iron out protocols covering roles
and responsibilities; experiencing tensions among key players on the task
force, including nongovernmental organizations; or relying on informal
contacts based on who knew whom or pre-established relationships among
task force members (e.g., local law enforcement and FBI) rather than on
positions or protocols. Members from one task force we interviewed even
held different opinions regarding its protocols. The task force leader
attributed the task force's success to its informal protocols. By
contrast, another task force member told us that the protocols, which had
not been developed in consultation with task force members, were merely
guidelines and led to victims falling through the cracks because of the
lack of standard services. Examples of types of possible technical
assistance needs suggested by the task forces we contacted included (1)
ways to improve communication and sharing information/intelligence between
and among entities, including e-mail lists, a secure Web site, and
training bulletins; (2) standardized protocols that outline roles and
responsibilities of each member agency, which the task forces can adapt
for their own jurisdictions; (3) help in strategizing; (4) regional and
national meetings that bring smaller groups of task forces together; (5)
interpreters/cultural assistance; and (6) safe and secure housing for
victims.
Technical Assistance Plan Could Enhance BJA's Support to Human Trafficking
Task Forces
BJA does not have a technical assistance plan for its human trafficking
grant program. Our previous work on federal agencies' administration of
grants or funding to state and local entities has shown the need for
agencies that administer grants or funding to state and local entities to
implement a plan that focuses technical assistance efforts on areas of
greatest need.^35 BJA told us that it was developing a plan to provide
additional and proactive technical assistance to the task forces. It said
the plan would address developing BJA's capability to provide technical
assistance as needed, identifying model task force leaders who could
provide some technical assistance to other task forces, and establishing a
means to ensure communication among the task forces. Officials said that
they were working with OVC to develop an approach that would meet the
needs of BJA and OVC human trafficking grantees. However, BJA reported
that the development and review of the plan had been delayed pending final
decisions on DOJ's funding for fiscal year 2007.
As part of its plan, BJA might address outreach needs to ensure that task
forces are aware of BJA's capacity to provide or facilitate the obtaining
of technical assistance and training. DOJ and DHS officials emphasized the
importance of the task forces to the overall U.S. effort to investigate
and prosecute trafficking in persons. Working within communities, task
force members are usually best situated to identify trafficking victims
and crimes. Representatives of some of the task forces we contacted were
not aware of BJA's capacity to respond to technical assistance needs.
Accordingly, identifying steps needed to disseminate information on the
types of assistance and training available is a necessary component of a
technical assistance plan for these task forces.
Also, BJA might incorporate into its plan a systematic assessment of its
performance measures for the task forces. BJA reported that it collated
and analyzed the performance data it received, would make routine calls to
the particular task force to help resolve the performance issues, or
obtain additional information to assist a task force in addressing a
problem. However, systematically assessing task force reports on BJA
performance measures could help BJA to identify common problem areas in
collecting and reporting performance data. It could also provide BJA with
the means to determine which measures might need to be modified or how BJA
might enhance its measures to enable it to assess the impact of task force
efforts. Such an approach should help BJA to facilitate the task forces'
meeting the program's overall goals and objectives of identifying victims
and supporting investigations and prosecutions.
^35See [38]GAO-06-627 .
In addition, through its technical assistance plan, BJA might identify
steps to obtain information from the task forces on areas for continuous
improvement. This information could be used to determine common and
emerging technical assistance or training needs, approaches for meeting
those needs, and how best to provide that assistance. As part of its plan,
BJA could also develop other means and mechanisms for providing technical
assistance to the task forces effectively and efficiently. For example, as
suggested by some of the task force members we contacted, a secure Web
site could provide a means for task forces to share best practices,
readily obtain samples of protocols or other documents, or ask for
peer-to-peer assistance from other task forces. BJA could also use the Web
site to disseminate information to the task forces.
BJA's plan might also include a component for assessing the quality of its
technical assistance. To ensure that the technical assistance and training
provided to the task forces meet their needs, BJA might request
information from the task forces on technical assistance and training
provided to them, including evaluations of that assistance. Such
information could help BJA demonstrate what it has done to support the
task forces and the effectiveness of those efforts in meeting task force
needs. This information could also be used to ascertain necessary
modifications of or changes to technical assistance to better meet task
force needs.
To facilitate BJA's technical assistance to the task forces, the plan
might identify available technical assistance and training resources from
a variety of sources. BJA could then match a particular task force's needs
with technical assistance and training that might be provided by other
federal agencies, such as CRT/CS, or other task forces. While such
training and technical assistance are currently provided on a case-by-case
basis, within the context of a plan, BJA could more systematically
galvanize these resources, incorporate them into its overall approach to
meeting the task forces' needs, and assess their impact on task force
efforts. Information on task force training needs could also be used to
help BJA, working with other federal agencies, to plan the content and
format of the legislatively mandated 2007 and 2008 national trafficking
conferences so that it meets the range of training and technical
assistance needs for experienced task forces as well as new task forces.
Conclusions
Federal agencies have made strides in several areas to combat trafficking
crimes and to coordinate their efforts on a case-by-case basis. This
approach has generally led to an increase in the number of investigations
and prosecutions since the passage of the TVPA in 2000. However, as
agencies look ahead to broadening their efforts while still maintaining
coordination on individual cases, strategic planning will be necessary to
ensure agency resources are being expended with the greatest return on
investment. Defining a common governmentwide outcome for investigations
and prosecutions of trafficking crimes, reconciling roles and
responsibilities, and ensuring consistent communication and information
sharing are vital to the investigation and prosecution of trafficking
crimes. Yet no such outcome has been collaboratively defined by the
agencies, perceptions of leadership differ among agencies, and policies
are not in place to ensure consistent communication and information
sharing. Furthermore, to sustain a coordinated victim-centered approach to
combating trafficking, agencies must continue to educate and engage their
own personnel, as well as supporting partners in the effort to combat this
crime, such as state and local law enforcement, nongovernmental
organizations, non-law enforcement agencies, and citizens. As our prior
work on multi-agency collaboration has shown, a strategic framework that
includes elements such as defining a common outcome, establishing mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies, and agreeing on roles and
responsibilities, among others, is particularly useful in addressing
problems that are national in scope and involve multiple agencies with
varying jurisdictions. Such an approach allows for the necessary
flexibility and incorporation of different types of collaborative
mechanisms to address the complexities of and unique challenges posed by
such problems. Working in a more strategic fashion, agencies could build
on their current cooperative relationships to establish a strategic focal
point, ensure consistency of communication and partnerships, and sustain
and expand a coordinated effort to investigate and prosecute trafficking
in persons crimes.
BJA's competitive grant program has funded state and local law enforcement
human trafficking task forces to support U.S. efforts to identify
trafficking victims and investigate and prosecute trafficking crimes.
Given its mission to support state and local law enforcement, BJA has
provided some training and technical assistance to the human trafficking
task forces, sometimes through coordinated efforts with other agencies.
However, the task forces we interviewed identified challenges they faced
in implementing BJA's strategic planning requirements and carrying out
their responsibilities, especially in identifying potential victims and
establishing partnerships with key players. Our previous work on federal
agencies' administration of grants or funding to state and local entities
shows the importance of implementing a technical assistance plan that
focuses the training and technical assistance efforts by agencies that
administer grant funding. In the absence of such a plan, BJA may find it
difficult to target technical assistance to the task forces most in need
and ensure that task forces receive the technical assistance needed to
meet the strategic planning requirements and performance measures outlined
in the human trafficking task force grant solicitation. Implementing such
a plan will help BJA focus its efforts, enabling BJA to better ensure that
its efforts meet the needs of the task forces, achieve the objectives of
the program, enhance collaboration across levels of government and between
government and nongovernmental entities, and ultimately support U.S.
efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To help ensure that the U.S. government maximizes its ability to enforce
laws governing trafficking in persons, we recommend that the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the
Secretaries of Labor, State, and other agency heads deemed appropriate,
develop and implement a strategic framework to coordinate U.S. efforts to
investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons. At a minimum this
framework should
a. define and articulate a common outcome;
b. establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;
c. agree on roles and responsibilities; and
d. establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries.
To better support the federally funded state and local human trafficking
task forces, we recommend that the Attorney General direct the Director of
the Bureau of Justice Assistance to develop and implement a plan to help
focus technical assistance on areas of greatest need.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney General,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the
Secretary of Labor. DOJ and DHS provided written comments, which are
summarized below and included in their entirety in appendixes V and VI,
respectively. In addition, these agencies and DOS and DOL provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
DOJ agreed with the contents of the report. Regarding our recommendation
to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop
a strategic framework to coordinate U.S. efforts to investigate and
prosecute trafficking crimes, DOJ acknowledged that continued and
increased collaboration could further efforts to investigate and prosecute
trafficking in persons crimes. DOJ further noted that it is already
pursuing a variety of such methods, including establishing the Human
Trafficking Prosecution Unit and holding collaborative meetings and
training sessions with its partners. As a result, DOJ proposed that the
report identify the need for continued collaboration but not mandate one
particular collaborative model.
It was not our intent to prescribe a particular structure or collaborative
model. We recognize that because of the unique challenges posed by
trafficking in persons investigations and prosecutions, the proposed
framework needs to be flexible. Our previous work has shown that the four
elements outlined in our recommendation--a common outcome; mutually
reinforcing or joint strategies; agreed-on roles and responsibilities; and
compatible polices, procedures, and other means to operate across agency
boundaries--are key to an effective strategic framework. However, the
specifics of each of these elements, additional elements to be included in
a strategic framework for the investigation and prosecution of trafficking
crimes, and the structures for developing and implementing this framework
would be determined by the agencies involved. In response to DOJ's
comments, we have included language in our report that reinforces the need
for flexibility in developing and implementing a strategic framework for
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking in persons.
Commenting on our recommendation that the Attorney General call on the
Director of BJA to develop and implement a plan to help focus technical
assistance to the human trafficking task forces, DOJ stated that to
address the areas of task force technical assistance needs raised in our
report, BJA and OVC planned to collaboratively develop and lead a
facilitated working group, including representatives from these agencies,
ICE, HSTC, DOL, and other DOJ components, by October 1, 2007. The working
group is to provide input into BJA's collaborative outreach and improve
training and technical assistance strategies to address issues raised in
the report. DOJ enumerated the elements that its training and technical
assistance plan was expected to include, such as a strategy for informing
task force members, on a continuous basis, of the availability of training
and technical assistance resources; a systematic assessment of performance
measures; and methods to assess the quality of training and technical
assistance.
DHS generally agreed with the contents of the report. Specifically, DHS
said that the report reflected an overall understanding of the
complexities of the antitrafficking response; ICE's efforts in leading
investigations, conducting outreach, and responding to trafficking
victims; and properly characterized ICE's compliance with National
Security Presidental Directive 22. In response to the report's discussion
of interagency coordination and strategizing, DHS noted that ICE regularly
conducted strategic planning with its partners, particularly in the field;
worked with federally funded state and local trafficking task forces; and
contributed to annual trafficking reports prepared by DOJ. Moreover, DHS
maintained that interagency coordination through the SPOG ensured that
trafficking policies and guidelines were carried out, and therefore ICE
believed that a governmentwide framework or strategy was not needed.
Our report acknowledged that the SPOG and its working groups help to
facilitate coordination of governmentwide policy on human trafficking.
However, the focus of our work was U.S. efforts to investigate and
prosecute trafficking in persons crimes, the coordination of which rests
with criminal justice personnel, primarily DHS and DOJ. Given DOJ and DHS
senior officials' acknowledgment of the need to expand the scope of U.S.
efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons and our
finding that existing mechanisms and individual agency plans did not
address the interagency collaboration needed to support this expanded
level of effort, we recommended the development of a strategic framework
for coordinating U.S. efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking
cases.
Commenting on this recommendation, DHS said that ICE would support such a
framework if certain considerations were taken into account. For example,
DHS noted that mutual goal setting might be possible so long as the goals
contained objectives that specifically addressed unique agency
capabilities in combating trafficking. DHS also noted that any framework
would also need to recognize that agencies' roles in a particular case
would vary by available resources, local priorities, and the nature of the
case and investigation. Agency resources for policy efforts and initiating
any recommendations that arose from the framework would also be critical.
GAO would expect that in developing and implementing such a framework for
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking crimes, the agencies
involved would determine how to address varying authorities, respective
resources, and other relevant factors.
We will send copies of this report to the Attorney General, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Labor,
and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web Site at [39]http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-2757 or [40][email protected] . Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VII.
Robert N. Goldenkoff
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
To ascertain the status of U.S. efforts to investigate and prosecute
trafficking crimes, this report discusses (1) key activities federal
agencies have undertaken to combat trafficking in persons crimes, (2)
federal efforts to coordinate on investigations and prosecutions of
trafficking in persons crimes and whether these efforts might be enhanced,
and (3) how the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) supported federally
funded state and local human trafficking task forces and whether these
efforts might be improved. This review is part of a larger body of work
that you requested on U.S. efforts to combat trafficking in persons, here
and abroad.^1
To determine key activities federal agencies have undertaken to combat
trafficking in persons crimes, we reviewed pertinent documents and
interviewed officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Civil Rights Division/Criminal
Section (CRT/CS), Criminal Division/Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section (CEOS), and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the
Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division; the Department of
State's (DOS) Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Office to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons; and the Human Smuggling and Trafficking
Center (HSTC). We obtained and analyzed written responses to questions we
provided, departmentwide strategic planning documents, agency plans,
strategies, and memorandums and guidance on efforts to combat human
trafficking. We obtained examples of training materials used to train
investigative agents and to conduct outreach and attended the national
human trafficking conference in New Orleans in October 2006. From the FBI,
ICE, CRT/CS, and CEOS, we obtained and analyzed relevant data on the cases
investigated and prosecuted, including numbers of cases, defendants
charged, and convictions, as well as, where possible, estimates of the
resources used to do so. We discussed the sources of these data with
federal agency officials to determine that these data were sufficiently
reliable to show trends in agencies' activities undertaken to investigate
and prosecute trafficking crimes. We did not seek data prior to the
passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000 for
investigative agencies since the establishment of the Department of
Homeland Security transferred some human trafficking investigative duties
from DOJ's legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service to DHS's
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
^1See GAO-07-1034 and [41]GAO-06-825 .
To determine what efforts federal agencies have undertaken to coordinate
investigations and prosecutions of trafficking in persons crimes and
whether these efforts might be enhanced, we reviewed pertinent documents,
such as agency reports, strategies, and memorandums to field offices. We
interviewed officials from DOJ headquarters, including FBI, CRT/CS, CEOS,
and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; DHS's ICE and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; DOL's Wage and Hour Division; DOS's
Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons; and the HSTC. We gathered and analyzed information from
selected field personnel representing the FBI, ICE, and local U.S.
Attorney's Offices. To ascertain how efforts to combat trafficking might
be enhanced and identify applicable criteria to be used in our analysis,
we consulted our prior work on agency collaboration, international crime,
terrorism, organized crime, and the illegal importation of prescription
and illegal drugs.^2 We also interviewed agency officials to identify
challenges they face in the investigating and prosecuting of trafficking
crimes and to identify what elements may enhance their efforts.
To assess how BJA has supported federally funded state and local human
trafficking task forces and whether these efforts might be enhanced, we
obtained and analyzed relevant documents from BJA, including task force
grant proposals, grant reports written by program managers, performance
measurement data, and information from its Web site.^3 We interviewed BJA,
Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), and CRT/CS officials on the origin of
the task forces, when task forces were funded, and the types of assistance
provided to the task forces. We also interviewed field personnel from the
FBI, ICE, and DOL to determine what federal supports had been given to the
task forces we selected for either site visits or telephone interviews. We
developed case studies of seven task forces to provide us with in-depth
knowledge about how the task forces are functioning, how they are working
together, and what supports and technical assistance they have been
provided. Gathering information for the case studies included site visits
to task forces in Collier County, Florida; Los Angeles, California; and
Washington, D.C.; and telephone interviews with key participants from task
forces in Houston, Texas; Hawaii; and Nassau and Suffolk Counties in New
York.
^2See [42]GAO-06-15 ; International Crime Control: Sustained
Executive-Level Coordination of Federal Response Needed, [43]GAO-01-629
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 13, 2001); [44]GAO-04-408T ; Organized Crime:
Issues Concerning Strike Forces, [45]GAO/GGD-89-67 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
11, 1989); Prescription Drugs: Strategic Framework Would Promote
Accountability and Enhance Efforts to Enforce the Prohibitions on Personal
Importation, [46]GAO-05-372 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2005).
^3The BJA task forces are not the universe of human trafficking task
forces directed toward law enforcement. However, they were clearly defined
as task forces focused on human trafficking, readily identifiable by
federal agencies, considered by federal agencies to be part of the overall
federal effort to investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons, and
had a definite source of federal funding. For these reasons, we focused
our work on the BJA-funded task forces that existed at the time of our
review.
In selecting the 7 task forces we contacted, we limited our selection to
the longest-running task forces (i.e., the 22 founded in fiscal year
2004)--those that had had an opportunity to be established. From this
group, we tried to include task forces located in various U.S. geographic
regions, and with a primary focus on either sex trafficking, labor
trafficking, or both sex and labor. To ensure that we included task forces
of varying performance levels, we asked officials from BJA and CRT/CS for
recommendations on task forces that were performing well. In addition to
these recommendations, we also used BJA performance measures such as
number of victims found and the number of continued presence visas
provided to make our selections. As a part of our site visits or through
telephone interviews, we interviewed the task force leader, the Assistant
U.S. Attorney (who may or may not the leader), the primary local law
enforcement contact, the dominant nongovernmental organization
participant, and FBI and ICE representatives on the task force. BJA was
not able to provide us with a list of task force participants, but a
nongovernmental organization, Polaris Project, affiliated with the
Washington, D.C., human trafficking task force, had networked with all the
BJA-funded task forces at the federally sponsored human trafficking
conference in New Orleans in October 2006, and provided us with a list
identifying the "key players." From this list, we developed our list of
interviewees based on our inclusion criteria. The FBI and ICE participant
names were provided to us through the liaisons in each agency. Overall,
through site visits and telephone interviews we interviewed a total of 50
task force members. We interviewed 13 Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 7 local
law enforcement, 6 FBI participants, 5 ICE agents, 1 DOL participant, 13
nongovernmental organization participants, and 3 task force leaders from
an Attorney General's office. In addition, we interviewed a U.S. Attorney,
who had recently set up a human trafficking task force, to obtain his
perspective on challenges faced in putting a task force into operation.
This approach does not allow for generalizing. In addition, we reviewed
relevant GAO reports on federal agencies' administration of grants or
funding to state and local entities.^4
We conducted our work from June 2006 through June 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
^4See [47]GAO-06-627 .
Appendix II: Statutory Provisions Used to Investigate and Prosecute
Trafficking Crimes
During the 1990s, the United States began to take steps to address
trafficking in persons at home and abroad. DOJ prosecuted trafficking
cases under several federal criminal statutes, including the involuntary
servitude statutes,^1 the Mann Act,^2 and labor laws on workplace
conditions and compensation.^3 However, various U.S. policymakers
determined that existing U.S. statutes did not take into account some
characteristics of contemporary trafficking in persons and, therefore, did
not adequately protect trafficking victims, deter trafficking, and bring
traffickers to justice. These statutes did not always treat trafficked
persons as victims. Involuntary servitude was restricted to cases of
physical abuse--force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion, as
opposed to the psychological coercion often used by today's traffickers.^4
While the modern concept of trafficking in persons focused on compelled
service, under the Mann Act trafficking was perceived as interstate
transportation for prostitution. Moreover, these statutes scattered
enforcement authority across the government and resulted in different case
outcomes, depending on the charges brought or which agency learned of the
allegations of abuse.
The TVPA addressed limitations in existing law that made it difficult to
prosecute traffickers, as well as adding new crimes and enhancing the
penalties. Federal agencies continue to rely on a number of statutes to
prosecute traffickers and halt their operations. Table 1 lays out the
primary statutes that support the investigation and prosecution of
trafficking in persons crimes.
^118 U.S.C. SS 1581-1588.
^218 U.S.C. SS 2421-2424.
^3For example, 29 U.S.C. S1851 (criminal sanctions for violations of the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and related
regulations).
^4See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988).
Table 1: Primary Statutory Provisions Used for Trafficking in Persons
Prosecutions
U.S. Code Provision
18 U.S.C. S 241 Conspiracy against rights
18 U.S.C. S 371 Conspiracy to commit federal offenses
18 U.S.C. S 1581 Peonage
18 U.S.C. S 1584 Involuntary servitude
18 U.S.C. S 1589 Forced labor
18 U.S.C. S 1590 Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor
18 U.S.C. S 1591 Sex trafficking of a minor or by fraud, force, or
coercion
18 U.S.C. S 1592 Holding or confiscation of passport or immigration
documents
18 U.S.C. S 1593 Mandatory restitution
18 U.S.C. S 1594(a) Attempt to commit peonage, slavery, involuntary
servitude, forced labor, trafficking, or sex
trafficking
18 U.S.C. S 1594(b) Asset forfeiture
18 U.S.C. SS 2421-2424 Mann Act (transportation for illegal sexual
activity and related crimes)
8 U.S.C. S 1324 Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
8 U.S.C. S 1328 Importation of an alien for immoral purposes
Source: GAO analysis.
Traffickers may also be charged with other offenses. Examples of these
statutes are shown in table 2.
Table 2: Other Related Statutory Provisions Used in Trafficking in Persons
Prosecutions
U.S. Code Provision
18 U.S.C. S 1546 Arranging a false visa for the victim
18 U.S.C. S 1622 Witness tampering
18 U.S.C. S 875 Interstate transmission of threats
18 U.S.C. S 1001 False statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of
the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
U.S. government
18 U.S.C. S 982 Asset forfeiture
18 U.S.C. S 2 Aiding and abetting a federal offense (e.g., employment
of unauthorized aliens)
31 U.S.C. S 5332 Bulk cash smuggling
18 U.S.C. S 1956 Money laundering
Source: GAO analysis.
Appendix III: Federal Efforts to Investigate and Prosecute Trafficking
in Persons and Data on Resources
This appendix provides additional data on federal agencies' efforts to
investigate and prosecute trafficking in persons crimes. It also presents
available information on federal agency resources used to support these
efforts.
Federal Agencies Report Prosecutions and Investigations of Trafficking in
Persons since fiscal year 2001
The FBI, ICE, and CRT/CS reported data on the investigations,
prosecutions, indictments, and arrests related to trafficking crimes since
the passing of the TVPA. These data are a general indicator of the level
of agency effort on trafficking in persons, although they are limited by a
number of factors. Because trafficking in persons is a hidden crime and
victims are hesitant to come forward, it is difficult to estimate the
extent of trafficking in persons crimes. Moreover, because prosecutors may
charge traffickers with other crimes (e.g., kidnapping, the Mann Act,
immigration violations, or money laundering) for strategic or tactical
reasons, data on the number of trafficking in persons investigations and
prosecutions do not provide a complete picture of the number of
traffickers who have been thwarted. The data systems agencies use are
primarily case management systems, which may not be able to extract
trafficking data if trafficking was not listed as a charge. Additionally,
if an investigation on smuggling later reveals a trafficking violation,
some data systems will continue to store investigative data under the
smuggling classification.
The complexity of the investigations and the limitations of data systems
make providing data on human trafficking a labor-intensive effort for
agencies. Therefore, these data are not comparable across the agencies and
it is not possible to associate arrest and indictment data with a
particular case because of differences in agency data systems. Moreover,
agency officials noted that investigations do not always lead to
prosecutions, because situations that appear to be trafficking may prove
to be alien smuggling or prostitution accompanied by abuse and, therefore,
do not meet the criteria to be prosecuted as trafficking cases. In
addition, ICE officials said that in situations involving children, the
agency's priority was to rescue the victim whether or not the
investigation led to the prosecution of the trafficker.
Since fiscal year 2001, CRT/CS has reported an overall increase in the
number of prosecutions for cases involving sex and labor trafficking, as
defined by CRT/CS, based on the facts of the case. Table 3 shows the
increase in number of prosecutions after the implementation of the TVPA in
2001, compared to those in the years leading up to the law's passage.
CRT/CS officials noted that the number of defendants in each case varied,
as well as the number of victims, and the complexity of the case (app. IV
provides summaries of several cases to illustrate this variation.).^1
Table 3: Trafficking in Persons Prosecutorial Statistics for Civil Rights
Division/Criminal Section and U.S. Attorneys' Offices, Fiscal Year 1995
through June 14, 2007
Fiscal year 1995-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007^a
Cases prosecuted^b
Sex trafficking 7 4 7 8 23 26 22 10
Labor trafficking 12 6 3 3 3 9 10 5
Defendants charged^c
Sex trafficking 34 26 27 21 40 75 85 35
Labor trafficking 55 12 14 7 7 21 26 15
Defendants convicted^c,d
Sex trafficking 20 15 23 16 30 25 60 59
Labor trafficking 47 8 5 5 3 10 38 5
Source: GAO analysis of Civil Rights Division/Criminal Section data.
aData as of June 14, 2007.
bCRT/CS classified cases as sex or labor trafficking according to the
facts of the case; the categories are mutually exclusive.
cData on defendants charged and convicted are not associated with the data
for cases opened in the same fiscal year.
dComparisons cannot be made between persons charged and convictions, since
actions on some defendants may still be pending.
The data since fiscal year 2001 related to investigations of trafficking
in persons provided by the FBI and ICE is shown in tables 4 and 5, and
also shows a general increase.^2 As with the prosecutions of human
trafficking cases, variation in numbers from year to year may be due to
the complexity of a case. For example, factors such as a case with many
victims, multiple defendants, a long period of victimization, and multiple
jurisdictions from which to collect evidence may affect how many cases are
able to be investigated from year to year.
^1According to CRT/CS officials, as a result of successful prosecutions,
defendants have been ordered to pay restitution in 34 cases since October
2000. The restitution amounts ranged between $257.55 to more than $1.8
million. The amounts can vary based on the length of time the victim was
exploited, the wages associated with the labor or service performed, and
the number of victims involved. However, when setting the amount of the
restitution, a court may not consider the defendant's ability to pay.
^2Only limited data were available from ICE, because the agency was
established in 2003 as part of the Department of Homeland Security and
initially had difficulties capturing trafficking in persons data.
Table 4: Trafficking in Persons Cases Investigated by the FBI's Civil
Rights Unit, Fiscal Year 2001 through April 5, 2007
Fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007^a
Cases opened 54 58 65 86 146 126 216
Indictments/information 29 26 40 32 45 97 39
Arrests 67 65 32 16 51 142 79
Convictions 15 15 18 22 14 70 31
Source: FBI Civil Rights Unit.
Note: These cases may include joint investigations with ICE. The number of
cases includes both sex and labor trafficking.
aData as of April 5, 2007.
Table 5: Trafficking in Persons Cases Investigated by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2005 through May 31, 2007
Fiscal year 2005 2006 2007^a
Cases opened
Sexual exploitation 183 213 161
Forced labor 84 85 88
Other^b 55 26 4
Total 322 324 253
Indictments
Sexual exploitation 54 93 60
Forced labor 11 10 1
Other 46 27 11
Total 111 130 72
Arrests
Sexual exploitation 85 135 93
Forced labor 15 6 28
Other 86 43 2
Total 186 184 123
Convictions
Sexual exploitation 6 69 54
Forced labor 5 7 5
Other 80 26 12
Total 91 102 71
Source: Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Note: These cases may include joint investigations with the FBI.
aData as of May 31, 2007.
bHuman trafficking cases classified other than sex or labor trafficking.
Additionally, FBI's Crimes Against Children Unit reported data on cases of
trafficking of U.S. children for commercial sex from its Innocence Lost
National Initiative, as shown in table 6.
Table 6: Innocence Lost Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004 through June 5, 2007
Fiscal year 2004 2005 2006 2007^a
Cases opened 67 71 103 86
Indictments/Information 27 48 76 36
Arrests 118 387 157 137
Convictions 22 45 43 72
Source: FBI's Crimes Against Children Unit.
aData as of June 5, 2007.
DOL's Wage and Hour Division reported participating in four cases
involving criminal or potentially criminal allegations of trafficking in
persons, which were concluded in fiscal year 2007. The division reported
seven cases currently under investigation; seven cases at some stage of
litigation or case development by the FBI, Assistant U.S. Attorney, or
others; and one additional case in which it will be providing technical
assistance following direct law enforcement action. According to the
division, its involvement may have been as a result of a referral from
another agency (e.g., FBI, Assistant U.S. Attorney, or local law
enforcement), a referral from an advocacy organization, or a situation in
which the division was the initial investigating agency. In addition to
participation in cases involving violations of the trafficking statutes,
the division has also assisted other law enforcement agencies in
developing investigations or prosecutions of criminal violations of other
statutes and may pursue criminal penalties under its own statutes. For
example, according to CRT/CS, DOL has been involved in the calculation of
back wages and overtime pay for victims, as in United States v. Calimlim.
According to DOL, it provided technical advisory assistance to the
prosecuting U.S. Attorney, furnishing sample back wage computations that
would have been due had the victim fallen under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and had the case events occurred within the
FLSA statute of limitations. In the subsequent prosecution, CRT/CS
successfully secured a $940,000 restitution order.
Resource Commitments of Federal Investigative and Prosecutorial Agencies to Meet
Their Responsibilities for Pursuing Trafficking in Persons Crimes
To implement their respective plans and carry out activities related to
the investigation and prosecution of trafficking in persons, agencies have
generally drawn from existing resources. Therefore, according to DHS and
DOJ officials, resource information may not be distinguishable from other
activities and is generally an estimate. Information is also not
consistent across agencies.
Although the 2005 TVPA amendments authorized appropriations of $18,000,000
in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to ICE and $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2006
to the FBI for trafficking investigations, these amendments were enacted
after fiscal year 2006 had already begun and the amounts were not
appropriated. ICE reported 53 full-time equivalents for fiscal year 2005,
68 in fiscal year 2006, and 32 through the first half of fiscal year 2007
for trafficking activities. In midyear 2003, ICE received $3.7 million in
supplemental funding, which mostly funded law enforcement operations to
enforce the TVPA and domestic and overseas training activities. FBI
officials told us they had not received a separate appropriation
specifically for trafficking in persons. The FBI Civil Rights Unit
reported as of April 2007, 141 Special Agents are allocated to its Civil
Rights Program throughout 56 field offices. One Unit Chief, six
Supervisory Special Agents, and eight support staff are assigned to
headquarters. For fiscal year 2006, approximately 24 percent of these
resources were directed toward human trafficking matters.
In fiscal year 2006, the FBI's Crimes Against Children Unit received
$500,000 from the Assets Forfeiture fund to support task forces and
working groups investigating trafficking of U.S. children for commercial
sex. The funds were used for overtime pay for state and local officers,
equipment, and training. Additionally, to support the Innocence Lost
National Initiative, the FBI received 16 positions (10 agents and 6
analysts) in fiscal year 2005, and 10 agent positions in fiscal year 2006.
The FBI said it requested 30 investigative, clerical, and analytical
personnel to support the Crimes Against Children program initiatives for
fiscal year 2008, including combating trafficking of U.S. children for
commercial sex.
In addition, the conference agreement for the fiscal year 2007 DHS
appropriation designated $1 million to ICE for its contribution to the
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC). HSTC officials said
although these funds were not designated specifically for trafficking in
persons, they would assist HSTC's trafficking efforts. Furthermore,
because ICE was the only agency with funds specifically designated for
HSTC, it would henceforth take on the responsibility for up-front
administrative expenses at HSTC, for which other agencies, including DOS
and DOJ, would then reimburse ICE.
CRT/CS also reported that it had not received funds specifically
designated for human trafficking prosecutions, but provided us with
estimates of the numbers of positions, attorneys, and full-time
equivalents for trafficking in persons. CRT/CS further noted that the
actual number of positions is very difficult to track, because, as is true
for all enforcement areas within the Criminal Section, most attorneys do
not work exclusively on trafficking in persons, but carry other criminal
enforcement cases as well. CRT/CS training, outreach, and technical
assistance on trafficking in persons have also been provided from its
operating funds. However, CRT/CS developed and provided us with estimates
of various types of resources it used to address trafficking in persons,
as presented in table 7.
Table 7: DOJ Estimates of CRT/CS Trafficking in Persons Resources, Fiscal
Years 2000-2007
Fiscal year Positions Attorneys Full-time equivalents Dollars in thousands
2000 6 3 $401
2001 9 9 980
2002 21 14 15 1,748
2003 21 14 21 2,527
2004 21 14 21 2,638
2005 21 14 21 2,687
2006^a 21 14 21 2,900
2007^b 21 14 21 $3,100
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ-provided data and data found in fiscal year
2008 congressional budget submission.
aReflects estimated costs for fiscal year 2006.
bReflects the fiscal year 2007 budget submission.
DOJ's fiscal year 2008 budget submission included a request for a CRT/CS
program increase of $1,713,000, 13 agent/attorney positions, and 7
full-time equivalents for its trafficking efforts.
According to CEOS, prosecuting sex trafficking and sex tourism cases can
be enormously resource intensive, especially if foreign victims or
investigators will be needed to testify at trial. As trafficking crimes
were not a line item in the appropriation legislation, CEOS could not
provide actual data on the resources used to prosecute these crimes.
However, CEOS estimated that it has devoted approximately 15 to 25 percent
of its attorney time to trafficking crimes since 2003. FBI and CEOS
officials noted the lack of facilities for these victims, who need special
treatment.
The TVPA authorized the Attorney General to make grants to develop,
expand, or strengthen victim service programs for victims of trafficking.
DOJ received approximately $10 million per year in fiscal years 2002
through 2006 for victim services programs for victims of trafficking, as
authorized by section 107(b)(2) of the TVPA. In fiscal year 2002, OVC
awarded these funds to nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services
providers to develop, expand, or strengthen services for victims of
trafficking. According to DOJ officials, in fiscal year 2003, DOJ decided
to use a portion of these funds to award BJA task forces grants on
trafficking with the goal of expanding services for victims by identifying
more victims and connecting them with needed services. In subsequent
fiscal years, both OVC and BJA awarded grants with these funds.
In addition, FBI, ICE, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and CRT/CS
have emergency funds that may be used to provide immediate services to
victims when services cannot be provided through other programs that
support trafficking victims. According to OVC, the agencies coordinate
these efforts through it to ensure that any use of emergency funds is
appropriate, maximizes the use of trafficking appropriation dollars when
they are available, and occurs when no other funds are available.
Appendix IV: Summary Case Studies
The following case studies illustrate several of the characteristics of
human trafficking described in this report, including (1) the diverse
purposes for which people are trafficked and the circumstances in which
they work, both legally and illegally; (2) the variation in the number of
victims; (3) case complexity; and (4) coordination among law enforcement
and nongovernmental organizations in caring for the victims and
prosecuting the perpetrators.^1
United States v. Kil Soo Lee
United States v. Kil Soo Lee--the largest trafficking prosecution before a
federal court--resulted from an investigation involving five languages,
several countries and states, and numerous federal agencies and
nongovernmental organizations. Between September 1998 and December 2000,
Lee recruited 250 skilled garment workers--mostly young women who had paid
$5,000 and $8,000 recruitment fees--from China and Vietnam, locating his
garment factory, named Daewoosa Samoa, in American Samoa to use the "Made
in America" label and avoid drawing attention to his operation. The
workers believed the fees to be legitimate payment in exchange for new
jobs possibly leading to a better life. Instead, they lived, ate, and
slept in barracks on the factory compound, surrounded by fences that
remained locked and guarded during working hours. Lee and his associates
seized passports--threatening the workers with deportation, bankruptcy,
severe financial hardship to family members back home, and false
arrest--and withheld food and pay.
In March 1999, workers asked to be paid for several months' labor. Kil Soo
Lee refused to pay them, and when the workers protested, he locked them
inside of the Daewoosa compound and refused to provide them with food.
Several workers climbed over the fence at night and contacted local
residents to complain and seek food. Upon finding out that workers had
left the compound, Kil Soo Lee notified the American Samoan police that
the workers were causing a disturbance and had the police arrest three of
the female workers who tried to leave the company grounds. The workers
were unable to speak English or Samoan, and thus were unable to
communicate the true version of events to the police. Attempting to
communicate with the outside world, another worker threw a handwritten
note from the window of the company car after visiting jailed coworkers.
This note was found and passed on to the U.S. Department of Labor, which
investigated allegations that Kil Soo Lee had withheld the workers' pay.
Because of the investigation, DOL required Lee to make restitution to the
affected employees. Following additional complaints and allegations that
Lee was requiring workers to kick back the back wage payments, DOL again
investigated. The garment manufacturers for which Lee was producing goods
provided the back wage restitution for the underpaid employees in this
second investigation.
^1CRT/CS and DOL's Wage and Hour Division reviewed the summary of the Kil
Soo Lee prosecution, and CRT/CS provided the summary of the Carreto
prosecution.
In November 2000, workers protested again by slowing production. On Lee's
direction, guards entered the factory and conducted a mass beating of the
Vietnamese, inflicting severe injuries on several. Local police
investigated the uprising but dismissed the case, believing the guards'
accounts that the Vietnamese workers had attacked the Samoans. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration of DOL then arrived to
conduct inspections of the Daewoosa facility from November to February
2001, citing violations of workplace safety noted from earlier
investigations concluded in June 1999. In March 2001, FBI agents and
CRT/CS prosecutors traveled to American Samoa to investigate. They
conducted interviews, surveyed the factory, and seized records, computers,
and other evidence. Kil Soo Lee was then arrested on March 23, 2001. He
and four other defendants were indicted in August of that year on 22
charges of subjecting workers to involuntary servitude. The trial began in
October 2002 and lasted 4 months.
During prosecution, the nature of the crime and the cultural and
linguistic backgrounds of the workers posed challenges for the Civil
Rights Division. Attorneys had to prove that the workers--now witnesses in
the trial--were victims rather than simply violators of labor and
immigration laws. Lee had already had some of them deported, while others
scattered to 20 states around the country after being given temporary
immigration status to testify. During the pretrial preparations and the
trial, more than 200 victims had to be housed and fed, while the sick and
injured required medical care. Because the victims had limited or no
English facility (languages spoken included Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean,
and Samoan), interpreters had to be provided. Agents and attorneys also
had to gain the victims' trust, overcoming their fears of law enforcement
and authority, which Kil Soo Lee and the other defendants had earlier
exploited. Finally, the victims needed to be assured that no harm would
come from the proceedings either to them or their families back home and
that they had done nothing to draw shame or fear of exposure upon
themselves.
In August 2001, two of the American Samoan guards entered guilty pleas to
participating in the conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the garment
workers and were later sentenced to 70 and 51 months in prison. Two
codefendants were acquitted on all charges. In February 2002, Kil Soo Lee
was convicted of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the workers, 11
counts of involuntary servitude, 1 count of extortion, and 1 count of
money laundering. Lee, who was in his mid-50s, was sentenced in June 2005
to 40 years in prison, which at that time was the highest sentence handed
down in a trafficking/slavery case that did not result in death, and
ordered to pay restitution of $1,826,087.94.
On April 16, 2002, the High Court of American Samoa in a separate
consolidated civil case also ordered Daewoosa Samoa, Ltd. to pay $3.5
million in back wages to the workers.
United States v. Carreto
The Carreto case came to the U.S. government's attention on a tip from
Mexican authorities that a victim was believed to have been held and
forced into prostitution. An investigation led agents to locations where a
number of young women and their traffickers were arrested. The defendants
were members or associates of an extended family whose principal business
was reaping the profits from compelling young Mexican women into
prostitution through force, fraud, and coercion. The defendants, who often
lured the women into romantic relationships, used deception, psychological
manipulation, and false promises, along with physical beatings and rapes,
to overcome the will of the victims, compel them into prostitution, and
force them to turn over virtually all the proceeds to the defendants.
During the investigation of this case, ICE and DOJ coordinated with
international nongovernmental organizations, the Mexican government, and
Mexican attorneys to remove the victims' children from the custody of the
Carreto family, thereby removing one of the last means of control the
Carreto family had exerted over the victims. The investigation revealed
extensive sex trafficking activity between Mexico and the United States,
prompting initiatives to coordinate multijurisdictional, multi-agency
investigations.
On November 16, 2004, a federal grand jury returned a 27-count superseding
indictment charging Josue Flores Carreto, Gerardo Flores Carreto, Daniel
Perez Alonso, Eliu Carreto Fernandez, Consuelo Carreto Valencia, and Maria
de los Angeles Velasquez Reyes with victimizing nine young Mexican women.
The indictment charged the six defendants with counts of conspiracy to
commit sex trafficking, sex trafficking, attempted sex trafficking, forced
labor, violation of the Mann Act, conspiracy to import aliens for immoral
purpose, and alien smuggling.^2 Two additional defendants, Edith Mosquera
de Flores and Eloy Carreto Reyes were charged separately by complaint.
On April 5, 2005, on the morning trial in this case was to begin, Gerardo
Flores Carreto, Josue Flores Carreto, and Daniel Perez Alonso pled guilty
to all charges in the 27-count indictment. On April 27, 2006, Gerardo
Flores Carreto and Josue Flores Carreto were each sentenced to 50 years in
prison. Daniel Perez Alonso was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Edith
Flores had previously been sentenced to 16 months. On June 1, 2006, Eliu
Carreto Fernandez was sentenced to 80 months in prison. Eloy Carreto Reyes
is still pending sentencing.
On January 19, 2007, the Mexican government extradited defendant Consuelo
Carreto Valencia to the United States, along with 14 other criminal
defendants, in an extradition that Attorney General Gonzales lauded as
unprecedented in its scope and importance. Consuelo Carreto Valencia, the
mother of two of the lead defendants, is charged with conspiring with the
other defendants to compel the victims into forced prostitution. An
additional defendant, Maria de los Angeles Reyes, remains in Mexico, where
she has previously been arrested on related charges. CRT/CS is seeking her
extradition.
^218 U.S.C. S 371 conspiracy to commit 18 U.S.C. S 1591 sex trafficking;
18 U.S.C. S 1591 sex trafficking; 18 U.S.C. S 1594 attempted sex
trafficking; 18 U.S.C. S 1589 forced labor; 18 U.S.C. S 2421 Mann Act; 18
U.S.C. S 371 conspiracy to import for immoral purpose under 8 U.S.C. S
1328; and 8 U.S.C. S 1324 alien smuggling.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Robert N. Goldenkoff (202) 512-2757.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Glenn G. Davis, Barbara A.
Stolz, Susanna R. Kuebler, Richard Ascarate, Kelly Bradley, Erin Claussen,
Frances Cook, Stuart Kaufman, and Elizabeth Curda made significant
contributions to the report.
Related GAO Products
Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance
U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad, [48]GAO-06-825 (Washington, D.C.:
July 18, 2006)
Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are
Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements, [49]GAO-07-1034 (Washington,
D.C.: July 26, 2007)
Results-oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [50]GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 21, 2005)
International Crime Control: Sustained Executive-Level Coordination of
Federal Response Needed, [51]GAO-01-629 (Washington, D.C.: August 13,
2001)
Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National
Strategies Related to Terrorism, [52]GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.:
February 3, 2004)
Organized Crime: Issues Concerning Strike Forces, [53]GAO/GGD-89-67
(Washington, D.C.: April 11, 1989)
Prescription Drugs: Strategic Framework Would Promote Accountability and
Enhance Efforts to Enforce the Prohibitions on Personal Importation,
[54]GAO-05-372 (Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2005)
Community Services Block Grant Program: HHS Should Improve Oversight by
Focusing Monitoring and Assistance Efforts on Areas of High Risk,
[55]GAO-06-627 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2006)
(440519)
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 ( [56]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
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
[57]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
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [58]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [59][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [60][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [61][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
[62]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-915 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [63]GAO-07-915 , a report to congressional requesters
July 2007
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency Collaboration
Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes
Human trafficking is a transnational crime whose victims include men,
women, and children and may involve violations of labor, immigration,
antislavery, and other criminal laws. To ensure punishment of traffickers
and protection of victims, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA), which is subject to reauthorization in
2007. The Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) lead
federal investigations and prosecutions of trafficking crimes. As
requested, this report discusses (1) key activities federal agencies have
undertaken to combat human trafficking crimes, (2) federal efforts to
coordinate investigations and prosecutions of these crimes, and (3) how
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) supported federally funded state
and local human trafficking task forces. GAO reviewed strategies, reports,
and other agency documents; analyzed trafficking data; and interviewed
agency officials and task force members.
[64]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the Attorney General and Secretary of DHS develop and
implement a strategic framework to enhance collaboration and the Attorney
General direct BJA to develop and implement a plan to help focus technical
assistance to the task forces. DOJ and DHS generally agreed with the need
for enhanced collaboration, and DOJ identified steps to assist the task
forces.
Since the enactment of the TVPA in 2000, federal agencies have (1)
investigated allegations of trafficking crimes, leading to 139
prosecutions;(2) provided training and implemented state and local
initiatives to support investigations and prosecutions; and (3)
established organizational structures, agency-level goals, plans, or
strategies. For example, agencies have trained new and current personnel
on investigating and prosecuting trafficking in persons crimes through
their agency training academies and centers, provided Web-based training,
and developed and disseminated guidance on case pursuance. Agencies have
also sponsored outreach and training to state and local law enforcement,
nongovernmental organizations, and the general public through a toll-free
complaint line, newsletters, national conferences, and model legislation.
Finally, some agencies have established special units or plans for
carrying out their antitrafficking duties.
Federal agencies have coordinated across agencies on investigations and
prosecutions of trafficking crimes on a case-by-case basis, determined by
individual case needs, and established relationships among law enforcement
officials across agencies. For example, several federal agencies worked
together to resolve a landmark trafficking case involving over 250
victims. However, DOJ and DHS officials have identified the need to
advance and expand U.S. efforts to combat trafficking through more
collaborative and proactive strategies to identify trafficking victims.
Prior GAO work on interagency collaboration has shown that a strategic
framework that includes, among other things, a common outcome, mutually
reinforcing strategies, and compatible polices and procedures to operate
across agency boundaries can help enhance and sustain collaboration among
federal agencies dealing with issues that are national in scope and cross
agency jurisdictions.
To support U.S. efforts to investigate trafficking in persons, BJA has
awarded grants of up to $450,000 to establish 42 state and local human
trafficking law enforcement task forces. BJA has funded the development of
a train-the-trainer curriculum and a national conference on human
trafficking and taken further steps to respond to task force technical
assistance needs. Nevertheless, task force members from the seven task
forces we contacted and DOJ officials identified continued and additional
assistance needs. BJA does not have a technical assistance plan for its
human trafficking task force grant program. Prior GAO work has shown the
need for agencies that administer grants or funding to state and local
entities to implement a plan to focus technical assistance on areas of
greatest need. BJA officials said they were preparing a plan to provide
additional and proactive technical assistance to the task forces, but as
of June 2007 had not received the necessary approvals.
References
Visible links
30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-825
31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-825
33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-627
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-408T
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-627
39. http://www.gao.gov/
40. mailto:[email protected]
41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-825
42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-629
44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-408T
45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-89-67
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-372
47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-627
48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-825
49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1034
50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-629
52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-408T
53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-89-67
54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-372
55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-627
56. http://www.gao.gov/
57. http://www.gao.gov/
58. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
59. mailto:[email protected]
60. mailto:[email protected]
61. mailto:[email protected]
62. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-915
63. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-915
*** End of document. ***