Human Trafficking
Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements Gao ID: GAO-07-1034 July 26, 2007Human trafficking--a worldwide crime involving the exploitation of men, women, and children for others' financial gain--is a violation of human rights. Victims are often lured or abducted and forced to work in involuntary servitude. Since 2001, the U.S. government has provided about $447 million to combat global human trafficking. As GAO previously reported, estimates of the number of trafficking victims are questionable. In this report, GAO examines (1) collaboration among organizations involved in international antitrafficking efforts, (2) U.S. government monitoring of antitrafficking projects and difficulties in evaluating these projects, and (3) suggestions for strengthening monitoring and evaluation. GAO analyzed agency documents; convened an expert panel; interviewed officials; and conducted fieldwork in Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico.
While governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations have recognized the importance of collaborating and have established some coordination mechanisms and practices, they will need to overcome challenges that have impeded collaboration in the past for their efforts to be successful. In two of the three countries GAO visited, it found that host governments--which bear ultimate responsibility for combating trafficking within their borders--have passed national antitrafficking laws and enacted national action plans. However, organizations continue to face numerous challenges when collaborating to combat human trafficking, including varying levels of government commitment and capacity. For example, some governments treat foreign trafficking victims as illegal immigrants and deport rather than protect them. In addition, according to officials in two of the three countries GAO visited, the ministries responsible for coordinating antitrafficking efforts have limited authority and capacity. U.S. government-funded antitrafficking projects often lack some important elements that allow projects to be monitored, and little is known about project impact due to difficulties in conducting evaluations. Project documents GAO reviewed generally include monitoring elements, such as an overarching goal and related activities, but often lack other monitoring elements, such as targets for measuring performance. To oversee projects, State officials supplement their efforts with assistance from U.S. embassy staff, but have not established written guidance for oversight. Officials said that they are working to improve performance measures and develop monitoring guidance. Conducting impact evaluations of antitrafficking projects is difficult due to several factors, including questionable project-level estimates of the number of trafficking victims. These estimates are needed for baselines by which to evaluate how effectively specific interventions are reducing trafficking. Elements in the design of certain projects, such as objectives that are too broad, further impede evaluation. Because of these difficulties, few impact evaluations have been completed, and little is known about the impact of antitrafficking interventions. A GAO-convened panel of experts identified and discussed ways to address the factors that make it difficult to monitor and evaluate antitrafficking projects. Panelists' suggested approaches included improving information on the nature and severity of trafficking and addressing monitoring and evaluation in project design. To improve information on trafficking, panelists suggested methods that have been used to sample other hard-to-reach populations, including domestic violence victims. One suggested method is sampling of "hot spots"--an intensive search for victims in areas known to have high concentrations of victims. To address weaknesses in project design that impede monitoring and evaluation, panelists suggested that officials design projects that clearly link activities to intended outcomes, identify measurable indicators, and establish procedures for setting and modifying targets.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-1034, Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1034
entitled 'Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International
Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements' which was
released on July 26, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
July 2007:
Human Trafficking:
Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are Limited, but
Experts Suggest Improvements:
GAO-07-1034:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1034, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Human trafficking”a worldwide crime involving the exploitation of men,
women, and children for others‘ financial gain”is a violation of human
rights. Victims are often lured or abducted and forced to work in
involuntary servitude. Since 2001, the U.S. government has provided
about $447 million to combat global human trafficking. As GAO
previously reported, estimates of the number of trafficking victims are
questionable. In this report, GAO examines (1) collaboration among
organizations involved in international antitrafficking efforts, (2)
U.S. government monitoring of antitrafficking projects and difficulties
in evaluating these projects, and (3) suggestions for strengthening
monitoring and evaluation. GAO analyzed agency documents; convened an
expert panel; interviewed officials; and conducted fieldwork in
Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico.
What GAO Found:
While governments, international organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations have recognized the importance of collaborating and have
established some coordination mechanisms and practices, they will need
to overcome challenges that have impeded collaboration in the past for
their efforts to be successful. In two of the three countries GAO
visited, it found that host governments”which bear ultimate
responsibility for combating trafficking within their borders”have
passed national antitrafficking laws and enacted national action plans.
However, organizations continue to face numerous challenges when
collaborating to combat human trafficking, including varying levels of
government commitment and capacity. For example, some governments treat
foreign trafficking victims as illegal immigrants and deport rather
than protect them. In addition, according to officials in two of the
three countries GAO visited, the ministries responsible for
coordinating antitrafficking efforts have limited authority and
capacity.
U.S. government-funded antitrafficking projects often lack some
important elements that allow projects to be monitored, and little is
known about project impact due to difficulties in conducting
evaluations. Project documents GAO reviewed generally include
monitoring elements, such as an overarching goal and related
activities, but often lack other monitoring elements, such as targets
for measuring performance. To oversee projects, State officials
supplement their efforts with assistance from U.S. embassy staff, but
have not established written guidance for oversight. Officials said
that they are working to improve performance measures and develop
monitoring guidance. Conducting impact evaluations of antitrafficking
projects is difficult due to several factors, including questionable
project-level estimates of the number of trafficking victims. These
estimates are needed for baselines by which to evaluate how effectively
specific interventions are reducing trafficking. Elements in the design
of certain projects, such as objectives that are too broad, further
impede evaluation. Because of these difficulties, few impact
evaluations have been completed, and little is known about the impact
of antitrafficking interventions.
A GAO-convened panel of experts identified and discussed ways to
address the factors that make it difficult to monitor and evaluate
antitrafficking projects. Panelists‘ suggested approaches included
improving information on the nature and severity of trafficking and
addressing monitoring and evaluation in project design. To improve
information on trafficking, panelists suggested methods that have been
used to sample other hard-to-reach populations, including domestic
violence victims. One suggested method is sampling of ’hot spots“”an
intensive search for victims in areas known to have high concentrations
of victims. To address weaknesses in project design that impede
monitoring and evaluation, panelists suggested that officials design
projects that clearly link activities to intended outcomes, identify
measurable indicators, and establish procedures for setting and
modifying targets.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of State and Labor and the
Administrator of USAID consider taking actions to (1) improve
information about project impact on human trafficking and (2) address
monitoring and evaluation in project design. In their comments, State
agreed to implement the recommendations. While agreeing that monitoring
and evaluation are important, Labor and USAID did not directly respond
to GAO‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1034].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Thomas Melito at (202)
512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Organizations Have Taken Steps to Collaborate, but Continue to Face
Challenges:
U.S. Government-Funded Antitrafficking Projects Lack Some Key
Monitoring Elements; Little Is Known about Project Impact Due to
Difficulties in Conducting Evaluations:
Expert Panel Identified Ways to Address the Difficulties of Monitoring
and Evaluating Antitrafficking Projects:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected International Organizations Involved in Combating
Human Trafficking:
Appendix III: Methods Suggested by Expert Panel to Estimate the Number
of Human Trafficking Victims:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: Comments from the United States Agency for International
Development:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: U.S. Funding Obligated for Activities to Combat Global Human
Trafficking, Fiscal Years 2001-2006:
Table 2: Selected International Organizations' Funding for
Antitrafficking Projects:
Table 3: Selected International Organization Missions and Activities to
Combat Human Trafficking:
Table 4: Sampling Methods Suggested by Expert Panel to Estimate the
Number of Human Trafficking Victims:
Abbreviations:
ADB: Asian Development Bank:
COMMIT: Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative Against Trafficking:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
G/TIP: Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
IDB: Inter-American Development Bank:
ILO: International Labor Organization:
IOM: International Organization for Migration:
NGO: nongovernmental organization:
OAS: Organization of American States:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OSCE: Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe:
PRM: Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration:
SPOG: Senior Policy Operating Group:
TVPA: Trafficking Victims Protection Act:
UN: United Nations:
UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:
UNICEF: United Nations Children's Fund:
UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
USAID: United States Agency for International Development:
July 26, 2007:
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Foreign Affairs:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
House of Representatives:
Human trafficking--a worldwide crime involving the exploitation of men,
women, and children for others' financial gain--is a violation of
fundamental human rights. Victims are often lured or abducted from
their homes and subsequently forced, through various means, to work in
prostitution, sweatshops, agricultural settings, or domestic service,
among other types of servitude. In addition to inflicting grave
personal damage upon its victims, trafficking undermines government
authority, fuels organized criminal groups and gangs, and imposes
social and public health costs. As we have previously reported,
estimates of the number of trafficking victims are questionable due to
data and methodological weaknesses.[Footnote 1]
To combat global human trafficking, the U.S. government directly
implements projects overseas and contributes financial support to the
United Nations (UN) and other international organizations. The U.S.
government has strongly supported antitrafficking efforts and, since
2001, has provided approximately $447 million in foreign assistance to
nongovernmental organizations (NGO), international organizations, and
foreign governments to combat and help eliminate human
trafficking.[Footnote 2] In addition, since the mid-1990s, the United
States has played a leading role in putting human trafficking on the
international community's agenda. In 2000, Congress enacted the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act[Footnote 3] (TVPA) to combat
trafficking in persons; in 2003 and 2005, Congress reauthorized the
act,[Footnote 4] which is due for reauthorization in 2007. In December
2005, the United States became a party to the United Nations' Protocol
to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against
Transnational Organized Crime,[Footnote 5] which entered into force in
2003 and, as of July 2007, has 117 signatories and 113 party nations.
This review is part of a larger body of work that you requested on U.S.
and international efforts to combat human trafficking in the United
States and abroad.[Footnote 6] To review efforts to combat human
trafficking, we examined (1) collaboration among organizations involved
in international antitrafficking efforts, (2) U.S. government agencies'
monitoring of antitrafficking projects and difficulties in evaluating
these projects, and (3) suggestions for strengthening monitoring and
evaluation.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant planning, funding,
and project documents on human trafficking from the Departments of
State, Justice, Labor, Homeland Security (DHS), and Health and Human
Services (HHS) and the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID). We also reviewed planning and project documents from relevant
UN and other international agencies and offices, including the UN
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), International Labor Organization
(ILO), International Organization for Migration (IOM), United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF), and UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR). In addition, we discussed international antitrafficking
efforts with officials from the above agencies and organizations, as
well as foreign government officials and NGO representatives, in
Washington, D.C., and during our fieldwork in Indonesia, Thailand, and
Mexico. We selected these countries on the basis of the amount of U.S.
funding provided for international antitrafficking projects and the
number of U.S. government agencies and international organizations
working in each country. In April 2007, we worked with the National
Academy of Sciences to organize a 2-day expert panel on challenges and
alternative strategies for monitoring and evaluating international
antitrafficking projects. We conducted our review from August 2006 to
June 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Appendix I provides a detailed description of our
objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
While governments, international organizations, and NGOs have
recognized the importance of collaborating and have established some
coordination mechanisms and practices, they will need to overcome
challenges that have impeded collaboration in the past for their
efforts to be successful. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution
in December 2006 recognizing that broad international cooperation is
essential for combating trafficking, and UNODC launched the Global
Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking in March 2007. In two of the
three countries we visited, we found that host governments--which bear
ultimate responsibility for combating trafficking within their borders-
-have passed national antitrafficking laws and enacted national action
plans. However, organizations continue to face numerous challenges when
collaborating to combat human trafficking, including varying levels of
government commitment and capacity. For example, some governments treat
foreign trafficking victims as illegal immigrants and deport rather
than protect them. In addition, according to officials in two of the
three countries we visited, the ministries responsible for coordinating
antitrafficking efforts have limited authority and operational
capacity.
U.S. government-funded antitrafficking projects often lack some
important elements that allow projects to be monitored, and little is
known about project impact due to difficulties in conducting
evaluations. Project documents we reviewed generally include monitoring
elements, such as an overarching goal and related activities, but they
often lack other monitoring elements such as targets for measuring
performance. To oversee antitrafficking projects, State officials told
us they need to supplement their efforts with assistance from U.S.
embassy staff, but they have not established written guidance for
oversight. Officials said that they are working to improve performance
measures and develop monitoring guidance. Conducting impact evaluations
of antitrafficking projects is difficult due to several factors,
including questionable project level estimates of the number of
trafficking victims. These estimates are needed for baselines by which
to evaluate how effectively specific interventions are reducing
trafficking. In addition, elements in the design of certain
antitrafficking projects, such as short time frames and objectives that
are too broad, further impede evaluation. Because of these
difficulties, few evaluations that determine impact have been
completed. As a result, little is known about the impact of
antitrafficking interventions.
A GAO-convened panel of experts identified and discussed ways to
address the factors that make it difficult to monitor and evaluate
antitrafficking projects. Panelists' suggested approaches included
improving information on the nature and severity of human trafficking
and addressing monitoring and evaluation weaknesses in the design of
antitrafficking projects. To improve information on the nature and
severity of human trafficking, panelists suggested several sampling
methods that have been used to sample other hard-to-reach populations,
including the homeless, hidden migrants, missing and exploited
children, and domestic violence victims. One suggested method is
sampling of "hot spots"--an intensive search for victims in areas known
to have high concentrations of victims or in areas to which many
victims return. To address weaknesses in project design that impede
monitoring and evaluation, panelists suggested that officials design
projects that clearly link activities to intended outcomes, identify
measurable indicators, and establish procedures for setting and
modifying targets. Panelists further advised officials to determine
which projects are ready to be evaluated before conducting an
evaluation.
To improve the monitoring and evaluation of antitrafficking projects,
we are making two recommendations to the Secretaries of State and Labor
and the Administrator of USAID because they provided the most U.S.
funding for projects to combat global human trafficking. First, to
improve information about project impact on the nature and severity of
human trafficking, we are recommending that these three officials
consider several actions, where appropriate, such as developing better
data about the incidence of trafficking at the project level and
applying rigorous evaluation methodologies. Second, to address
monitoring and evaluation weaknesses in the design of antitrafficking
projects, we are recommending that these three officials consider other
actions, such as developing frameworks that clearly link activities
with project-level goals, indicators, and targets; conducting
"evaluability assessments" to determine whether a project is ready to
be evaluated; and building evaluation into project design before the
project is implemented.
We received written comments on a draft of this report from State,
Labor, USAID, and HHS, which are reprinted in appendixes IV, V, VI, and
VII, along with our responses to specific points. State said that the
report confirms several challenges inherent in foreign assistance
efforts, including antihuman trafficking programs. However, State
disagreed with our finding that monitoring is limited, stating that
monitoring is in place at the department and improving. While we
recognize that State and other U.S. agencies have certain elements of
monitoring in place, we report that most projects lack other important
elements, including a logic model that clearly explains how activities
are linked to project goals and targets that will establish benchmarks
for measuring performance. Labor said the report provides a good
overall assessment of international cooperation regarding
antitrafficking efforts and the need to enhance collaboration, and
highlights important areas for improving monitoring and evaluation.
However, Labor stated that the report does not fully reflect several
mechanisms it uses, including audits and process evaluations, to
monitor and oversee antitrafficking projects. In response, we revised
the text to further clarify Labor's monitoring and evaluation efforts.
USAID commented that it is concerned with the challenges of
coordination, monitoring, and evaluation, and agreed to continue
working to make improvements in these areas. State agreed to implement
our recommendations, while Labor and USAID did not directly respond to
our recommendations. HHS said that the report substantively covers the
range of programs and services available to combat human trafficking.
Background:
Human trafficking generally involves the use of force, fraud, or
coercion to enslave individuals in situations that are exploitative and
often illegal and dangerous. Since 2001, the U.S. government has
contributed approximately $447 million worldwide to foreign
governments, NGOs, and international organizations--such as UNODC, ILO,
and IOM--to combat human trafficking. U.S. agency and international
organization projects generally aim to prevent trafficking, protect
victims, and prosecute traffickers. Organizations have different
requirements for monitoring and evaluating their antitrafficking
projects.
Human Trafficking Cases Often Follow a Similar Pattern:
Although the crime of human trafficking can take different forms in
different regions and countries around the world, most human
trafficking cases follow a similar pattern--that is, traffickers use
acquaintances or false advertisements to recruit men, women, and
children in or near their homes, and then transfer them to and exploit
them in another city, region, or country.[Footnote 7]According to the
TVPA, victims of severe forms of trafficking include those who are
recruited or transported for labor through the use of force, fraud, or
coercion and for the purpose of subjecting them to involuntary
servitude.[Footnote 8] The use of fraud, force, or coercion typically
distinguishes human trafficking victims from individuals who are
smuggled. In some cases, individuals may enter freely into agreement
with and pay smugglers to help them cross international borders. After
arriving at their destination, however, individuals who do not
understand the destination country's language or culture may be
exploited by individuals who take advantage of their vulnerability.
Traffickers control their victims' living and working conditions by
physically confining them, taking away their identity documents, and
threatening their families. Traffickers also exploit victims' fears
that authorities will prosecute or deport them if they seek help.
Victims may be forced to work in legal or illegal and often dangerous
areas, including brothels, sweatshops, agricultural businesses, and
people's homes. Documented human trafficking cases have involved
victims such as children forced to beg for money in cities, work in
carpet shops, and participate in pornography and sex acts with adults;
women held in slavery-like conditions as domestic servants, strip club
dancers, and prostitutes; and men forced to perform work in the
agricultural sector and on fishing vessels.
U.S. Government and Multilateral Organizations' Projects Focus on Three
Areas:
To combat the diverse forms of global human trafficking, 5 U.S.
departments, USAID, and at least 15 international organizations have
provided assistance to governments and civil society organizations in
more than 100 countries. Assistance generally aimed to enhance efforts
to:
1. prevent human trafficking through public awareness, outreach,
education, and advocacy campaigns;
2. protect and assist victims by providing shelters as well as health,
psychological, legal, and vocational services; and:
3. investigate and prosecute human trafficking crimes by providing
training and technical assistance for law enforcement officials, such
as police, prosecutors, and judges.
These categories of interrelated victim-centered assistance activities--
prevention, protection, and prosecution--are commonly referred to as
"the three p's." Each type of assistance is viewed as critical for
reducing the incidence of human trafficking.
Since 2001, U.S. government agencies have provided approximately $447
million in foreign assistance to international organizations, NGOs, and
foreign governments to combat human trafficking (see table 1). Of the
U.S. agencies, State, Labor, and USAID have provided the most funding
to combat global human trafficking.
Table 1: U.S. Funding Obligated for Activities to Combat Global Human
Trafficking, Fiscal Years 2001-2006:
Dollars in millions.
State;
FY 2001: $11.47;
FY 2002: $23.01;
FY 2003: $28.13;
FY 2004: $33.36;
FY 2005: $34.41;
FY 2006: $18.36;
Total: $148.74.
USAID;
FY 2001: 6.74;
FY 2002: 10.72;
FY 2003: 15.42;
FY 2004: 27.59;
FY 2005: 21.34;
FY 2006: 27.31;
Total: 109.12.
Labor[ A];
FY 2001: 22.26;
FY 2002: 32.93;
FY 2003: 48.31;
FY 2004: 18.65;
FY 2005: 35.90;
FY 2006: 28.05;
Total: 186.10.
Justice[B];
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0.20;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
Total: 0.20.
HHS;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 2.20;
FY 2006: 0;
Total: 2.20.
DHS[C];
FY 2001: n/a;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0.20;
FY 2005: 0;
FY 2006: 0;
Total: 0.20.
Total;
FY 2001: $40.47;
FY 2002: $66.66;
FY 2003: $91.86;
FY 2004: $80.00;
FY 2005: $93.85;
FY 2006: $73.72;
Total: $446.56.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of State's
Office to Combat and Monitor Trafficking in Persons and the Department
of Labor.
Note: Funding is reported upon obligation by agencies in the year in
which it is obligated.
[A] In response to inquiries from GAO, Labor reclassified projects
funded in 2001 and 2005 and subsequently revised figures for these
years. In addition to the $28,048,000 allocated for projects to combat
trafficking in 2006, Labor provided $300,000 for a trafficking research
project.
[B] In addition to the $200,000 in Justice funding, State provided
additional funding to the department's Office of Overseas Prosecutorial
Development, Assistance and Training and International Criminal
Investigative Training Assistance Program to conduct training overseas.
In fiscal year 2004, State provided a total of $6.50 million to the two
Justice programs; in fiscal year 2005, it provided $2.08 million. In
fiscal year 2006, State and USAID provided $1.90 million. These amounts
are reflected in the State total in this table.
[C] DHS officials stated that additional funds used to carry out
antitrafficking activities, including law enforcement activities, come
from its regular budget and cannot be broken out.
[End of table]
As we have previously mentioned, U.S. agencies support antitrafficking
projects implemented worldwide by various international organizations,
which also receive funding from other donor governments and
organizations. As shown in table 2, for UNODC, ILO, and IOM, total
resources allocated to combating trafficking since 2000 totaled about
$255 million. The U.S. government provided about $122 million to UNODC,
ILO, and IOM to combat human trafficking, according to data provided by
these organizations and State's Office to Combat and Monitor
Trafficking and Persons (G/TIP). In addition, according to UNICEF's
annual reports, between 2003 and 2005, UNICEF allocated more than $453
million to its worldwide child protection program, which includes
projects to combat trafficking and the sexual exploitation of
children.[Footnote 9]
Table 2: Selected International Organizations' Funding for
Antitrafficking Projects:
Dollars in millions.
Worldwide organizations: UNODC[ B];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: $5.28 (2002-
06);
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: $18.16 (2002 to present).
Worldwide organizations: ILO [C];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: 46.35 (2000 to
present);
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: 84.47 (2000 to present).
Worldwide organizations: IOM [D];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: 70.10 (2000 to
present);
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: 152.18 (2000 to present).
Total;
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: $121.73;
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: $254.81.
Regional organizations: Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE)[E];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: $0.69 (2004-
2006);
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: $5.50 (2004-2006).
Regional organizations: Organization of American States (OAS)[F];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: 1.21 (2000 to
present);
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: 1.40 (2000 to present).
Multilateral development banks: Inter-American Development Bank
(IDB)[G];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: [Empty];
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: $1.43.
Multilateral development banks: Asian Development Bank (ADB)[H];
U.S. government funding for antitrafficking projects[A]: Worldwide
organizations: [Empty];
Total funding for antitrafficking projects from the United States and
other donors: 1.69.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by State, UN agencies,
multilateral development banks, and regional organizations.
Note: Organizations included in this table were able to separate
funding amounts for trafficking-specific projects. Information on other
international organizations involved in combating human trafficking--
but for which funding information for trafficking-specific projects was
not available--is included in appendix II.
[A] Amounts reflect U.S. government extrabudgetary support specifically
for antitrafficking projects. Amounts do not reflect the U.S.
government's regular contributions to these organizations.
[B] Amount of U.S. government funding to UNODC was based on GAO
analysis of data provided by State G/TIP. Amount of total UNODC funding
for antitrafficking projects was based on GAO analysis of data provided
by State and UNODC.
[C] Amounts of U.S. government funding and total ILO funding were
provided by ILO.
[D] Amounts of U.S. government funding and total IOM funding were
provided by IOM. Totals were calculated, in part, on the basis of U.S.
dollar amounts converted from other currencies using exchange rates as
of May 2007.
[E] Amounts reflect donor pledge amounts provided by OSCE for a 2-year
period (2004-2006), as of May 2007. Funding amounts in Euros--552,617
and 4,387,454--were converted to U.S. dollars using a weighted average
annual exchange rate for the period beginning 2004 and ending March
2007. According to GAO analysis of State G/TIP data, total U.S. funding
for OSCE antitrafficking projects for the 4-year period from 2002 to
2006 was approximately $1.5 million.
[F] Amounts reflect funding data provided by OAS's Department of Public
Security for its antitrafficking projects. In addition, according to
State G/TIP data, USAID provided $367,150 to the OAS Inter-American
Commission on Women for antitrafficking projects in fiscal year 2003,
and G/TIP provided $405,548 to implement an OAS coordinator's
antitrafficking activities in fiscal year 2004.
[G] IDB also funded two countries' security programs, one capacity-
building project and one gender mainstreaming project, that each
included antitrafficking components.
[H] According to ADB, this amount was allocated to trafficking-specific
activities included in five technical assistance projects. In addition,
ADB included human trafficking prevention components in 16 transport
projects totaling $2.3 billion. The amount of trafficking-specific
components in these projects was not available.
[End of table]
Some U.S. agencies and international organizations have provided
assistance that, although not specifically related to human
trafficking, may help to combat trafficking by reducing individuals'
vulnerability to becoming victims and by strengthening countries'
judicial systems. For example, USAID, the World Bank, the Asian
Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank have
implemented projects to root out corruption, build host governments'
legal systems, and improve the economic conditions of vulnerable
populations in developing countries. See appendix II for additional
information on international organizations' missions and
antitrafficking activities.
U.S. Agency and International Organizations' Monitoring and Evaluation
Requirements Vary:
Monitoring and evaluation are important tools for managing projects and
should be considered when designing projects. Performance measurement
involves developing a logic framework to explain how an intervention is
to achieve its intended outcomes. Monitoring helps agencies determine
whether the project is meeting its goals, update and adjust
interventions and activities as needed, and ensure that funds are used
responsibly. Monitoring includes, among other things, the development
of indicators that are linked as closely as possible to the variables
identified in the logic framework. These indicators are to be used
throughout implementation to assess whether the project is likely to
achieve the desired results. Monitoring also involves the choice of
baseline and target values for each indicator and includes plans for
periodic performance reports and data quality reviews. Evaluation is
needed to assess a project's impact or effectiveness. Project
evaluation involves the development of a methodology that will be used
to assess the project's impact and describes plans for collecting
baseline, interim, and final data on project results.
The TVPA requires the President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons to measure and evaluate the progress of
the U.S. government's efforts to combat trafficking. The Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPRA 2003) includes a
congressional finding that additional research is needed to fully
understand the phenomenon of trafficking in persons and to determine
the most effective strategies for combating trafficking. The TVPRA 2003
also requires an annual report from the U.S. Attorney General to
Congress to provide information on U.S. government activities to combat
trafficking in persons. In addition to these reports, Justice began
preparing annual assessments of U.S. government activities to combat
trafficking in persons in 2003. All six U.S. organizations' guidelines
also require implementers to monitor and report on project performance.
In addition, Labor also requires independent midterm and final
evaluations for all international antitrafficking projects.
Organizations Have Taken Steps to Collaborate, but Continue to Face
Challenges:
Global, regional, and country-level organizations recognize the
importance of collaborating to effectively combat human trafficking.
Although organizations involved in combating trafficking--governments,
multilateral organizations, and donors--have implemented some practices
to strengthen collaboration, to succeed they will need to overcome
challenges that can impede collaboration, including varying levels of
government commitment and capacity.
Global, Regional, and Country-Level Organizations Recognize the
Importance of Collaborating to Effectively Combat Human Trafficking:
At the global level, several UN organizations have acknowledged the
importance of collaborating to effectively combat human trafficking.
The UN Chief Executives Board[Footnote 10]recognized the challenges in
countering human trafficking and proposed establishing an interagency
mechanism to strengthen coordination in 2005. In July 2006, a UN
Economic and Social Committee resolution requested that UNODC organize
a meeting to coordinate the technical assistance that UN and other
intergovernmental organizations provide. In December 2006, the UN
General Assembly adopted a resolution recognizing that broad
international cooperation between member states and intergovernmental
and nongovernmental organizations is essential for effectively
countering the threat of human trafficking, and underlined the
importance of bilateral, subregional, and regional partnerships,
initiatives, and actions. This resolution further encouraged member
states to initiate and develop working-level contacts among countries
of origin, transit, and destination, especially among police,
prosecutors, and social authorities.
Organizations at the regional level have also recognized the importance
of collaboration. For example, in a September 2006 report, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE)
antitrafficking unit noted that, since trafficking is a transnational
crime, collaboration is crucial to enable transnational mechanisms of
communication and cooperation among governments, law enforcement,
judiciary, and NGOs. In addition, six countries in the Mekong subregion
of Southeast Asia have called for strengthened cooperation to combat
human trafficking under a process called the Coordinated Mekong
Ministerial Initiative Against Trafficking (COMMIT).
At the country level, donor governments and UN organizations have also
recognized the need to establish coordination mechanisms to, among
other things, share information and leverage the comparative advantages
of each organization. The Paris Declaration of Aid
Effectiveness[Footnote 11] establishes the importance of donor
coordination, stating that excessive fragmentation of aid at the
global, country, or sector level impairs its effectiveness. It further
states that a pragmatic approach to the division of labor and burden
sharing increases complementarity and can reduce costs. Through the
declaration, donors committed to make use of their respective
comparative advantage at a sector or country level by delegating
authority to lead donors for the execution of projects, activities, and
tasks. To draw on the collective strengths of the UN agencies and
programs operating in a country, UN country teams and the host
government develop a national analysis, called a common country
assessment. They subsequently produce a national development assistance
framework, which describes the collective UN response and the expected
results to achieve national priorities.
For U.S. government agencies, a 2002 presidential directive stated that
strong coordination among agencies working on domestic and foreign
policy is crucial.[Footnote 12] The directive called for departments
and agencies to coordinate U.S. foreign assistance programs, including
those that provide funding to governmental or nongovernmental
organizations to combat trafficking in persons. State officials told us
that this is done through the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG),
which, among other activities, facilitates a review by SPOG programming
agencies of each other's grant proposals for antitrafficking projects.
Organizations Face Challenges in Collaborating to Combat Trafficking:
Organizations--governments, multilateral organizations, and NGOs--face
several challenges in collaborating to combat human trafficking,
including the following:
* Government commitment varies. State's annual Trafficking in Persons
Report, which analyzes and ranks foreign governments' compliance with
minimum standards to combat trafficking, as outlined in the TVPA,
illustrates governments' varied efforts to address the issue. For
example, governments might not recognize trafficking as a problem. They
may treat foreign trafficking victims as illegal immigrants and deport
them back to their home countries, rather than protect them. They also
may not recognize trafficking within their own borders as a problem.
Moreover, some government officials are themselves involved in human
trafficking.
* Government capacity varies. Governments with greater resources and
more established institutions have a greater capacity to address
trafficking than countries that are poorer or less stable. In addition,
changes in government leadership and personnel, due to elections,
coups, assassinations, or other events, may result in the loss of
expertise in combating human trafficking. Furthermore, governments may
put trafficking under the purview of ministries with limited authority,
such as women's ministries.
* Organizations that combat trafficking vary in perspective and may be
in competition for limited funds. Combating trafficking involves
organizations--at the international and country levels--with expertise
in raising awareness, assisting child and adult victims, and
investigating trafficking cases, among other areas. Organizations may
view trafficking through their own mandates or viewpoints and may
perceive each other not only as collaborators but also as competitors
for scarce resources. As such, they may not share information, which
could lead to duplication and waste of funds.[Footnote 13]
* Understanding of trafficking varies across languages and cultures.
Countries approach trafficking in different ways. For example, some
countries' national antitrafficking strategies do not include men as
potential trafficking victims; also, in some countries, parents in
villages often sell their children to work as domestic servants in
large cities. Furthermore, translation issues can complicate
establishing a common understanding of what constitutes trafficking.
For example, although the legal term in Spanish for human trafficking
is "trata de personas," English speakers have translated human
trafficking into Spanish as "tráfico de personas," which in fact means
human smuggling.
Organizations Have Taken Steps to Strengthen Collaboration, but
Challenges Remain at the Global, Regional, and Country Levels:
Global and Regional Collaboration Efforts Have Recently Been Initiated:
Organizations at the global level have defined a common outcome--to end
human trafficking and slavery--and have recently initiated various
efforts to strengthen collaboration. In March 2007, UNODC launched the
Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking to generate political
will, an action plan, and financial resources to combat trafficking
worldwide. The steering committee of the initiative includes the six
leading international organizations involved in combating trafficking
in persons: UNODC, ILO, IOM, UNICEF, OSCE, and the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. UNODC also created the
Interagency Cooperation Group Against Trafficking in Persons in
September 2006 with the intended outcome of improving coordination
between UN agencies and other international organizations, and to
facilitate a holistic approach to preventing and combating human
trafficking. The group's functions include exchanging information and
promoting the effective and efficient use of resources.
Most existing regional coordination efforts that we reviewed have
defined a common outcome and established action plans for carrying out
antitrafficking activities. These efforts vary regarding whether they
are specifically directed against trafficking or are included in
discussions on migration or smuggling. In addition, they vary in number
of participating members from as few as 6 countries in the Mekong
subregion to as many as 56 countries in Europe, Asia, and North
America. For example, the governments involved in a UN project that
specifically focused on strengthening cooperation to combat trafficking
in the Mekong subregion have agreed to undertake 18 actions to combat
human trafficking, as part of an effort called the COMMIT process.
Officials stated that this agreement strengthens these countries'
incentives to undertake the actions through mutual accountability. In
addition, COMMIT developed an action plan that groups existing
activities into a single framework delineating roles and
responsibilities of UN organizations, implementing partners, and
governments in the six Mekong countries. Officials contrasted the
COMMIT process, which includes a small group of countries in one region
with interconnected trafficking problems, to larger organizations such
as the Bali Process, which approaches trafficking issues in conjunction
with issues related to smuggling in the Asia-Pacific region and has a
larger geographic scope, consisting of 38 governments across several
regions. These officials stated that having a larger geographic scope
makes it more difficult for the governments of these countries to hold
each other accountable for implementing the regional action plan. In
addition to these examples, OSCE initiated the Alliance against
Trafficking in Persons, which established a partnership with major
actors working to combat human trafficking to, among other things,
develop joint strategies and provide OSCE participating states and
others with harmonized decision- making aids. In Southeastern Europe,
the International Center for Migration Policy Development has begun a
project to facilitate the creation of a transnational referral
mechanism by 10 governments in the region and national NGOs to improve
transnational case management and victim protection. Furthermore, in
the western hemisphere, the Organization of American States (OAS) held
a conference in 2006 that resulted in guidelines for the 34 member
states and OAS to combat human trafficking.
Organizations continue to face obstacles as they work on global and
regional initiatives to collaborate to combat trafficking. For example,
governments disagree on whether there is a difference between "forced"
and "voluntary" prostitution. Such disagreements can hinder
collaborative efforts in combating sex trafficking. These global and
regional initiatives may eventually implement additional practices to
enhance collaboration, but it is too early to determine the success of
the current initiatives.
Country-Level Organizations Have Taken Some Steps to Strengthen
Collaboration, but Continue to Face Difficult Challenges:
Although organizations--including host governments, UN organizations,
U.S. government agencies, and other donor governments--in the three
countries we visited have implemented practices to strengthen
collaboration in combating trafficking, they continue to face
challenges. None of the three countries has mechanisms to coordinate
the efforts of all organizations involved in combating trafficking.
Host governments bear ultimate responsibility for combating trafficking
within their borders, and governments of the countries we visited have
taken some steps to collaborate. For example, the Indonesian and Thai
governments have passed national antitrafficking laws and enacted
national action plans that define common outcomes, outline strategies,
and assign roles and responsibilities. However, neither government's
action plan includes trafficking of men in its definition of human
trafficking. Officials in Indonesia stated that they expect to revise
the plan to include the trafficking of men, as well as women and
children, based on legislation passed in 2007. Although both the
Indonesian and Thai governments hold interagency meetings, the
ministries responsible for coordinating antitrafficking efforts have
limited authority and operational capacity, according to officials we
interviewed. Unlike Indonesia and Thailand, Mexico has neither a
national antitrafficking law nor an action plan. Mexican officials
stated that they convened one interagency meeting on human trafficking
and plan to institute additional coordination mechanisms after the
government passes a national antitrafficking law.
In Indonesia and Thailand, UN organizations, in conjunction with host
governments, have developed country assessments and assistance
frameworks to articulate overall development goals--including combating
trafficking--joint strategies, and roles and responsibilities. UN
organizations working on trafficking in Thailand also meet as part of
the Mekong regional project that we previously discussed; although,
according to one donor government official, attendance among UN
organizations is sporadic. UN officials in Indonesia told us that they
share information informally, but do not meet on a regular basis to
discuss trafficking.
According to U.S. government officials in Indonesia and Thailand, donor
governments have made sporadic and informal efforts to leverage
resources and avoid duplication of effort.[Footnote 14] For example, as
a result of informal coordination, Justice and French government
officials worked together on a criminal justice training project in
Indonesia. In Thailand, according to a U.S. official, although most of
the major donors attend the Mekong regional project's meetings, these
meetings are generally focused on UN activities, with little
opportunity for donors to coordinate. Officials in Indonesia and
Thailand acknowledged the need to establish regular bilateral donor
coordination efforts on trafficking issues and, at the time of our
fieldwork, had begun discussing the establishment of regular
coordination meetings.
While U.S. government agencies overseas have developed some
collaboration mechanisms to combat trafficking, they continue to face
challenges in coordinating their efforts. The U.S. embassies in the
three countries we visited, Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico, include
trafficking in persons in their mission performance plans, which
establish combating trafficking as a component of the U.S. government's
overall strategy in each country. U.S. officials in these countries
told us they organize trafficking-specific meetings that include U.S.
government agencies and their implementing partners, primarily to share
information. The U.S. government officials who were involved in
antitrafficking issues were responsible for other issues as well. In
Indonesia, for example, the primary U.S. embassy contact for
trafficking was also temporarily assigned deputy chief of mission in
East Timor. In Mexico, one agency official, whose responsibilities
consisted solely of human trafficking issues, had been named to also
serve as coordinator and primary contact for all U.S. antitrafficking
efforts. After this official's departure in December 2006, her
portfolio was added to the existing portfolio of another official from
the same U.S. agency. At the time of our visit in February 2007, State,
USAID, and DHS officials, who also covered other issues, were holding
meetings to coordinate their antitrafficking efforts internally.
However, a new U.S. antitrafficking coordinator for Mexico had not been
designated. Consequently, some Mexican government officials expressed
uncertainty about which U.S. agency official had the role of lead U.S.
government coordinator for trafficking in Mexico.
Furthermore, some U.S. government officials noted challenges in
coordinating between officials in Washington, D.C., and those overseas.
For example, a U.S. official in Thailand was unaware of a U.S.-funded
project in the country until that project hosted a conference and
requested additional funding from the U.S. embassy. The project had not
been included in the list of antitrafficking activities in Thailand
that the official received from State's trafficking office, which is
based in Washington. According to some agency officials overseas, not
knowing what other agencies and bureaus plan to spend on
antitrafficking activities in a particular country makes it difficult
for them to determine how much of their budgets to allocate to
antitrafficking activities. Although State's new Office of Foreign
Assistance has begun to address the issue of better coordinating all
U.S. foreign assistance by bringing together core State and USAID teams
to discuss U.S. development priorities in each recipient country, some
U.S. officials expressed uncertainty regarding which part of the U.S.
government would be responsible for outlining a new country-level
strategy and budget for combating trafficking.
U.S. Government-Funded Antitrafficking Projects Lack Some Key
Monitoring Elements; Little Is Known about Project Impact Due to
Difficulties in Conducting Evaluations:
Antitrafficking project documents we reviewed generally include
monitoring elements, such as an overarching goal and related
activities; however, they often lack other monitoring elements, such as
targets for measuring performance. Various other factors also make it
difficult to evaluate the impact of antitrafficking projects. These
factors include questionable estimates of the number of trafficking
victims at the project level, which are needed to evaluate the
effectiveness of specific antitrafficking interventions. Certain
project elements may further impede evaluations, including short time
frames and overly broad objectives. Because of these factors, few
evaluations that determine impact have been completed. As a result,
little is known about the impact of antitrafficking interventions.
U.S. Government-Funded Antitrafficking Projects Lack Some Important
Monitoring Elements; State Is Taking Steps to Strengthen Monitoring:
Most of the project documents we reviewed generally include one or more
monitoring elements, but lack others. We reviewed documents for 23 U.S.
government-funded antitrafficking projects in Indonesia, Thailand, and
Mexico, which generally include statements of project goals and a
description of activities.[Footnote 15] However, the majority of these
documents lack a logic framework that clearly links activities with
project-level goals, indicators, and targets. Specifically:
* Eighteen of the 23 projects do not clearly explain how activities
will achieve stated goals. For example, the project proposal for a
State-funded project in Thailand does not provide clear linkages
demonstrating how the training of local officials and screenings of a
public awareness video will achieve the project's overall goal of
reducing trafficking among vulnerable adolescents and women. In
contrast, all 4 Labor-funded projects in Indonesia, Mexico, and
Thailand clearly link project goals and activities. For example, 1 goal
of a project in Mexico is to develop a system to identify networks of
exploiters. Activities to achieve this goal include developing computer
software and training government officials in its use.
* Twenty-one of the 23 projects identify indicators, but of these, only
10 specify targets by which performance is measured. For example, a
State-funded project in Thailand included the "number of victims
rescued" and the "number of arrests of traffickers" as performance
indicators, but did not set numerical targets for measuring
performance. In contrast, a State-funded project implemented by IOM in
Indonesia established an expected result that 500 victims of
trafficking receive rehabilitation and reintegration assistance. For
the 13 projects that did not specify targets, the performance standards
to which grantees were held accountable were not clear. Of the 10
projects that did specify targets, 5 explained how targets were set.
These 5 projects included all 4 of the Labor projects we reviewed.
Another element of monitoring project performance is to supplement
implementing partners' reporting of programmatic and financial progress
with independent review through site visits at the field level. For
example, Labor officials reported that the International Labor Affairs
Bureau's Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking has
engaged ILO's external auditor to conduct audits of a sample of ILO's
international program for the elimination of child labor projects. This
office also has contracted with a certified public accounting firm to
conduct independent attestation engagements of its Education Initiative
projects. Among the objectives of these audits and attestation
engagements is an assessment of the accuracy and reliability of
performance data from grantees' progress reports.
State G/TIP has 4 Washington, D.C.-based staff members who are
responsible for overseeing projects in approximately 70
countries.[Footnote 16] G/TIP officials stated that because they cannot
visit all of the projects, they rely on U.S. embassy staff to provide
additional field-level oversight. However, the office has not
established written guidance for conducting such oversight. During our
fieldwork, an embassy official expressed frustration at the lack of
clear guidance and procedures. Embassy officials also told us that they
meet with project staff, but have other responsibilities that limit the
time they can devote to overseeing antitrafficking projects. According
to State's Bureau of Population, Refugees,and Migration (PRM)
officials, the bureau has only 3 staff to monitor and oversee its
antitrafficking projects currently being implemented in over 20
countries, and these staff cannot conduct site visits to all projects.
PRM staff also stated that they review progress reports submitted by
project implementers, but do not have a database or system for
compiling the information they receive from the field.
To address some of these concerns, State officials told us that they
are taking steps to strengthen monitoring, including developing new
indicators and written guidance for monitoring antitrafficking
projects. State G/TIP officials told us that they are developing a
system of key indicators to better inform management decision making
that would be consistently used for each of the three main types of
antitrafficking programs--prevention, protection, and prosecution.
State PRM and IOM, its key implementing partner, have also been
involved in an effort to develop and standardize an indicator framework
across IOM missions, although this effort was not completed during the
time of our review. Officials stated that this effort will serve as a
way to exchange ideas about best practices in different parts of the
world and will provide managers with information on implementation
needed to make decisions about current or future projects.
Factors Impede Evaluations of Antitrafficking Projects and Little Is
Known about Project Impact:
Various factors impede impact evaluations of antitrafficking projects.
First, data on human trafficking are questionable, including estimates
of the number of trafficking victims, making it difficult to determine
a preproject baseline. Second, elements of project design, such as
overly broad objectives or short project duration, diffuse potential
impact. Because of these factors, it has been difficult to evaluate the
effectiveness of antitrafficking interventions, and few evaluations
that determine impact have been completed. As a result, little is known
about the impact of antitrafficking interventions.
Lack of Project-Level Baseline Estimates Limits Evaluations:
The lack of accurate baseline estimates of the number of trafficking
victims is a limitation to conducting evaluations. As we have
previously reported, the accuracy of current estimates is
questionable.[Footnote 17] Without estimates of the scope of human
trafficking to use as baselines in project locations, it is very
difficult to determine where interventions are most needed or where
interventions would have the greatest impact. Developing baseline
estimates is difficult for the following reasons:
* Victims are a hidden population. Victims may be unaware, unwilling,
or unable to acknowledge that they are trafficking victims. Therefore,
it is difficult to reach them to collect information using standard
sampling techniques.
* Service providers may be unwilling to share victim data due to
confidentiality concerns. For example, the global database maintained
by IOM[Footnote 18] is not publicly available since assisted victims
are in a precarious position and revealing their identity could have a
detrimental effect on their safety.[Footnote 19]
* The definition of the term "trafficking in persons" is broad and
varies in meaning across different languages. As we previously
discussed, the understanding of trafficking varies across languages and
cultures. These variations in definition hinder the comparability of
data across countries and organizations.
* There are no commonly agreed-upon criteria for identification of
human trafficking victims. This lack of criteria hinders the ability to
identify victims, create consistent statistical databases, and design
analytical tools for surveys and estimates.[Footnote 20]
* Existing data may not be reliable. Developing countries, which are
typically the countries of origin, have limited capacity for data
collection, and their governments' commitment to combating trafficking
may be insufficient. Thus, sufficiently reliable data needed for
estimating trafficking incidence may not be available.
Elements of Project Design Impede Evaluations:
Elements in the design of certain antitrafficking projects, including a
tendency to focus on very broad, high-level objectives across a diverse
range of activities, diffuse projects' potential impact and create
challenges for evaluations.
When projects focus on overly broad objectives and contain too many
types of activities, their potential impact is diffused, which makes
them difficult to evaluate.[Footnote 21] For example, some
antitrafficking projects have very high-level goals or objectives, such
as "creating an environment for effective action against trafficking,"
or "strengthening the initiatives of government and others against
human trafficking" and contain activities covering 2 or more of the 3
key types of antitrafficking interventions--prevention, protection, and
prosecution. Of 153 U.S. international antitrafficking projects funded
in fiscal year 2004, 2005, or 2006, 56 percent included 2 or more of
these interventions and 29 percent included all 3 interventions.
Activities included public awareness campaigns, victim assistance, and
training for law enforcement officials.
While projects funded with greater resources could lead to more
noticeable longer-term changes, the impact of a shorter-term, smaller-
scale intervention may be difficult to attribute and quantify.
Antitrafficking projects vary significantly in terms of their time
frames and funding levels. For example, the projects we reviewed varied
in duration from 1 year to about 4 years, and projects' funding levels
varied from $15,000 to $6 million. Officials stated that some
organizations, such as State G/TIP, tend to fund smaller, shorter-term
projects, while Labor usually funds larger, longer-term projects.
Overall, experts told us that organizations also have generally limited
funding for impact evaluations and for research on the nature and scope
of human trafficking.
Experts stated that another factor impeding evaluations is that little
attention has generally been devoted at the start of projects to
evaluation design. For example, questions related to determining the
control group, the type of design for impact evaluation, the data that
would be collected, and the analytical methods that would be most
suitable are often not addressed before implementation. Furthermore,
experts stated that although projects target several groups of
beneficiaries, it is generally unclear how they can be reached and to
which group they would be compared. As a result, it is difficult to
determine what would constitute successful project implementation.
Little Is Known about Project Impact:
Because of the difficulties in evaluating antitrafficking projects, the
few evaluations that have been completed are qualitative rather than
quantitative, focus on process rather than impact, and rarely trace
victims over time.
The few evaluations completed used qualitative methods that are
valuable for documenting victims' perceptions and experiences, but,
unlike quantitative methods, they cannot be used to generalize results
to broader populations.[Footnote 22] For example, IOM's Office of
Inspector General has carried out impact evaluations of a select number
of antitrafficking projects. Our review of these evaluations shows that
they covered interventions in various parts of the world funded by
different donors. All of the available evaluations applied qualitative
methodologies, consisting of document reviews, site visits, interviews,
and focus groups with stakeholders. In addition, in a USAID-funded
assessment of child trafficking victims residing at a shelter in Nepal,
an evaluator used qualitative methods, such as observations and
interviews, to collect information on their daily lives, needs, and
preparation for reintegration into the community. The evaluator
concluded that skill-based training provided by the shelter does not
adequately prepare the girls for their reintegration into their
communities; however, this qualitative result could not be generalized
to the national level.
Completed evaluations also typically focused on process rather than
impact.[Footnote 23] Process evaluations are an important tool for
improving service delivery and assessing program effectiveness by
assessing whether activities conform to program design. Impact
evaluations assess the net effect of a program by comparing program
outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the absence of
the program. However, impact evaluations are an emerging field in
antitrafficking interventions. For example, a process evaluation of a
Labor-funded project aimed at reducing the victimization of minors who
have been trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked in Thailand
focused on the project's planning, implementation, and management. This
process evaluation was designed to monitor implementation and assess
project outcomes. However, the evaluation did not ultimately assess the
project's impact in reducing the victimization of minors.
Finally, our review identified few evaluations that track individual
victims who have been reintegrated into their communities over time.
For example, ILO is currently pilot-testing an application of a tracer
study methodology in the context of trafficking prevention. In
addition, according to Labor officials, in some cases the office has
conducted follow-up studies that examine a sample of beneficiaries to
document changes that have occurred. Furthermore, IOM officials noted
that several of its missions provided statistical information to gauge
the success of its victim reintegration efforts over time based on
specific indicators.[Footnote 24] According to experts, such
evaluations are costly and time-consuming. Tracking victims by country
can also be difficult because country boundaries are permeable and many
trafficking routes cross national borders.
Expert Panel Identified Ways to Address the Difficulties of Monitoring
and Evaluating Antitrafficking Projects:
A GAO-convened panel of experts identified and discussed ways to
address the factors that make it difficult to monitor and evaluate
antitrafficking projects. Panelists suggested approaches to improve the
monitoring and evaluation of antitrafficking projects, by improving
information on the severity of human trafficking and addressing
weaknesses in the design of antitrafficking projects.
Conduct Research on the Nature and Severity of Human Trafficking:
Panelists acknowledged that the lack of existing data on the nature and
severity of human trafficking limits evaluations of antitrafficking
projects, and suggested ways to improve information on the nature and
severity of human trafficking. According to the panelists, researchers
need to gather evidence to answer the following questions:
* What is the nature and severity of human trafficking? Panelists
stated that it is necessary to understand the nature of trafficking in
terms of its underlying conditions and the types of traffickers and
victims. Trafficking is a multidimensional, complex problem that
involves a wide range of victims; recruiters, brokers, and
intermediaries; and abusive employers and sexual exploiters.
Understanding the incentives of the people engaged in trafficking is an
important first step.
The severity of human trafficking can be measured by using qualitative
and quantitative methodologies. Panel members suggested several
sampling methods that have been used to sample other hard-to-reach
populations, including the homeless, hidden migrants, missing and
exploited children, domestic violence victims, inmates, and drug users.
One suggested method is sampling of "hot spots"--an intensive search
for victims in areas known to have high concentrations of victims or in
areas to which many victims return. Other methods include adaptive
cluster, double, indirect, and snowball sampling. (For a more detailed
discussion of sampling methods, see app. III.) These methods could be
used individually or in combination. Panelists further emphasized that,
whenever feasible, it is important to use methodologies that are
appropriate for the location sampled. In addition, it is critical to
determine whether the results are unique to a certain location or
whether they can be generalized to other locations. Panelists
recommended that research start at the local level. Such research would
identify successful small-scale interventions, increase the knowledge
of victims' needs, and develop meaningful performance measures. Lessons
learned at the local level could then be expanded to national and
regional levels.
* What is the projects' estimated effect on the nature and severity of
human trafficking? Panelists emphasized the necessity of designing
rigorous methods to evaluate antitrafficking projects, such as
randomized control trials.[Footnote 25] For example, as baseline
estimates in trafficking hot spots are obtained and interventions are
undertaken in that location to reduce trafficking, the use of "place-
randomized trials"[Footnote 26] for evaluation would become possible.
To determine the interventions' impact, data obtained from
interventions in hot spots could then be compared with locations where
there had been no interventions. Although randomized trials may be
difficult to execute for many trafficking projects, they are important
ways to generate evidence about interventions' effectiveness.
Randomized trials should be pilot-tested in carefully chosen settings
so that the evaluator can identify and correct any problems encountered
before expanding the trials to larger populations or areas. Panelists
pointed out that such rigorous evaluation has occurred in the fields of
public health and criminal justice. For example, a randomized study was
done of brothels in Thailand to obtain information on the HIV/AIDS
rates of prostitutes.
Address Monitoring and Evaluation Weaknesses in the Design of
Antitrafficking Projects:
To address weaknesses in project design that impede monitoring and
evaluation, such as projects with very broad, high-level objectives,
panelists made the following recommendations:
* Develop a logic framework. Given the weaknesses of some
antitrafficking projects that have overly broad objectives across a
diverse range of activities, panelists suggested that officials design
projects with a logic framework that has clear objectives and narrow
the focus of interventions. They also recommended that officials design
projects that clearly link activities to intended outcomes, identify
measurable indicators, and establish procedures for setting and
modifying targets. Measurable indicators with mutually agreed-upon
targets allow project officials to assess how a project is achieving
its overall goals and objectives. For example, a Labor-funded project
implemented by ILO in Mexico includes a logic framework that links
project activities and outputs to outcome objectives, and includes
clear indicators and means of verification. The project's overall goal
of eliminating the commercial sexual exploitation of children in Mexico
links to four immediate objectives that, in turn, link back to project
activities and outputs. One objective--that at least 300 child victims
of sexual exploitation or at-risk children and their families receive
assistance--is linked to 28 activities and 8 outputs, such as
increasing families' employment opportunities. These 28 activities
include disseminating employment promotion programs, organizing
employment training, and monitoring and analyzing the impact of these
dissemination and training efforts. Panelists emphasized that donors
and implementers should agree on the project's logic framework during
the design phase.
* Determine whether a project is ready to be evaluated. Given the
significant variance in project duration and funding levels, panelists
emphasized that evaluators would not be able to evaluate all existing
projects, but should first determine which projects are ready to be
evaluated. In conducting such "evaluability assessments," evaluators
determine, among other things, whether (1) the project is large enough,
has sufficient resources, and has been implemented long enough to make
an impact; (2) the project is reaching its target population; (3)
project documents specify and clearly link objectives, goals, and
activities; and (4) sufficient information exists to determine impact.
For example, larger, long-term projects are more likely to have an
impact and, thus, may be better candidates for evaluation than smaller,
short-term projects. Because larger antitrafficking projects generally
include a diverse range of interventions, panelists suggested narrowing
the evaluation to focus on discrete interventions or aspects of the
project.
* Build monitoring and evaluation into project design. Given that
evaluation is not generally considered during design, panelists
emphasized that project officials should consider how the project will
be evaluated before the project is implemented. Most importantly,
organizations need to define the project's intended impact and how that
impact will be measured. To do this, organizations would have to
determine the project beneficiaries and to which group they would be
compared, the data they would have to collect, and how they would
analyze those data. Management would not only need to collect data
during implementation to monitor if the project works according to
plan, but also collect data before and after implementation to
determine what works best.
Conclusions:
The United States has played an important role in combating global
human trafficking and spurring other governments to increase their
efforts in doing so. As organizations around the world increasingly
collaborate in combating trafficking, their ultimate success will
depend on the extent to which they are able to overcome difficult
challenges, such as varying levels of government commitment and
capacity, that have impeded collaboration in the past. More than 7
years after the passage of the UN protocol, little is known about which
interventions have been the most effective in preventing human
trafficking, protecting victims, and prosecuting traffickers.
The United States and other governments, international organizations,
and NGOs continue their efforts to fight trafficking, but there is
little information available to inform their decisions about project
implementation and selection. Although antitrafficking projects contain
some important elements for monitoring, they often lack other important
elements for measuring performance on a real-time basis, such as
targets. Such elements are critical in monitoring project performance
to determine whether interventions are being implemented as expected,
or whether they need to be changed to better combat human trafficking.
Evaluation is also important in determining whether antitrafficking
projects have been effective. However, few impact evaluations have been
completed due to the difficulties involved. As a result, little is
known about the impact of antitrafficking interventions.
Given the grave personal suffering of victims and negative impacts on
society that human trafficking creates, strengthening collaboration,
monitoring performance, and evaluating impact are important to ensure
that organizations fund antitrafficking interventions with the greatest
impact, where they are most needed, and through the effective and
efficient use of resources.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretaries of State and Labor and the
Administrator of USAID improve the monitoring and evaluation of their
projects to combat global human trafficking by considering the
following actions, where appropriate:
1. Improve information about project impact on the nature and severity
of human trafficking, including:
* developing better data about the incidence of trafficking at the
project level and:
* applying rigorous evaluation methodologies.
2. Address monitoring and evaluation weaknesses in the design of
antitrafficking projects, including:
* developing a framework that clearly links activities with project-
level goals, indicators, and targets;
* conducting "evaluability assessments" to determine whether a project
is ready to be evaluated; and:
* building monitoring and evaluation into project design before the
project is implemented.
We are addressing our recommendations to State, Labor, and USAID
because they provided the most U.S. funding for projects to combat
global human trafficking.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of
State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and
Labor; the Administrator of USAID; and cognizant officials at UNODC,
IOM, ILO, OAS, OSCE, the World Bank, IDB, and ADB or their designees.
We received written comments from State, Labor, USAID, and HHS, which
are reprinted in appendixes IV, V, VI, and VII along with our responses
to specific points.
In its comment letter, State noted that it will implement the
recommendations in the report in ways that are relevant and appropriate
to the mandates of the State offices working on antitrafficking
efforts. State further noted that the recommendations are entirely
consistent with the department's current activities and direction.
State also generally agreed that the antitrafficking field is well-
served by more information about the nature and severity of human
trafficking and recognized that effective project design is critical to
successful project implementation and program monitoring and can lay
the foundation for evaluation. However, State disagreed with our
finding that monitoring is limited, stating that monitoring is in place
at the department and improving. While we recognize that State and
other U.S. agencies have certain elements of monitoring in place, we
report that they lack others. For example, we found that for the 23
antitrafficking projects we reviewed, the majority do not have a logic
model that clearly explains how activities are linked to project goals.
In addition, the majority of these projects do not specify targets that
will establish benchmarks for measuring performance. State also
emphasized that many of its projects are designed to be of more limited
size, scope, and duration than those of other agencies, such as Labor.
State further noted that these projects of limited duration are worthy
of funding, but are not necessarily appropriate for evaluation. In the
report, we state that the impact of a shorter-term, smaller-scale
intervention may be difficult to attribute and quantify.
Labor commented that the report provides a good overall assessment of
international cooperation and the need to enhance collaboration among
key agencies and governments regarding antitrafficking efforts. Labor
also commented that the report highlights important areas for improving
monitoring and evaluation of U.S.-funded antitrafficking programs.
However, Labor stated that the report does not fully reflect efforts
particular federal agencies are taking in the monitoring and evaluation
of antitrafficking projects. As an example, Labor stated that it uses
several mechanisms, including audits and process evaluations, in its
monitoring and oversight of international technical assistance
projects, including antitrafficking projects, to ensure that U.S. funds
lead to planned outputs and results. In response, we made additions or
revisions to the text to further clarify Labor's monitoring and
evaluation efforts. We believe the overall monitoring of
antitrafficking projects is limited because the projects funded by the
other five agencies did not have the elements of monitoring we found in
Labor's projects.
USAID said it appreciates the thoughtfulness of GAO's report. USAID
also commented that it is concerned with the challenges of
coordination, monitoring, and evaluation, and that while it has made
considerable efforts to coordinate within the U.S. government and with
other organizations, it will continue to work within the interagency
process in Washington and in the field. USAID also agrees that
monitoring and evaluation of its antitrafficking efforts are very
important and that they rely on the availability of both human and
financial resources. USAID further agrees that the issues inherent in
the evaluation of antitrafficking activities are particularly
challenging because there is no baseline against which to measure
progress.
HHS said the report is a sound document that substantively covers the
wide range of programs and services available to combat human
trafficking.
We also received technical comments from Justice and DHS, as well as
from UNODC, IOM, ILO, OAS, OSCE, the World Bank, IDB, and ADB, which we
have incorporated in the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of State, Justice, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, and Labor; the Administrator of USAID;
ILO; IOM; and UNODC. We will also provide copies to others on request.
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VIII.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to examine (1) collaboration among organizations
involved in international antitrafficking efforts, (2) U.S. government
agencies' monitoring of antitrafficking projects and difficulties in
evaluating these projects, and (3) suggestions for strengthening
monitoring and evaluation.
To examine collaboration among organizations involved in international
antitrafficking efforts, we reviewed relevant planning, funding, and
project documents on human trafficking from the Departments of State,
Justice, Labor, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). We reviewed
planning and project documents from relevant United Nations (UN) and
other international agencies and offices, including the UN Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNODC), International Labor Organization (ILO),
International Organization for Migration (IOM), United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF), and UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR). We also reviewed UN reports and resolutions that address
coordination as well as documents from regional organizations, such as
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the
Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative Against Trafficking (COMMIT),
and the Regional Conference on Migration.
In addition, we reviewed documents from and discussed international
antitrafficking efforts with officials from the above agencies and
organizations as well as officials from host government, donor
government, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO), in Washington,
D.C., and during our fieldwork in Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico. We
also reviewed documents describing these countries' national mechanisms
to combat trafficking, including legislation and action plans, where
applicable. We selected Thailand because it is the country with the
largest number of international organizations working to combat human
trafficking. We selected Indonesia and Mexico because they receive a
large amount of U.S. funding for international antitrafficking projects
and have a relatively large number of U.S. government agencies and
international organizations working in each country. All 3 countries
are origin, transit, and destination countries for human trafficking
victims and have projects addressing prevention, protection, and
prosecution.
To examine organizations' monitoring and evaluation of antitrafficking
programs, we reviewed documentation from 23 projects in the 3 countries
we visited and illustrative projects from other countries. We worked
with U.S. agency officials in Washington and in the field to identify
U.S.-funded antitrafficking projects in Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico
that were ongoing during the time of our review (August 2006 to June
2007). We requested project documents--including proposals, grant
agreements, and progress reports--from these U.S. officials for
projects identified in these countries. In response to this request, we
received documents for 23 antitrafficking projects that were funded or
implemented by 6 U.S. agencies involved in international
antitrafficking efforts. We examined the project documents for the
following elements: statement of goals or objectives, statement of
activities, identification of indicators and targets, explanation of
how targets were selected, and inclusion of a logic model or framework.
While we recognize that these 23 projects may not be the complete
universe of antitrafficking projects in these 3 countries, we consider
these 23 projects sufficient for the purposes of our review.[Footnote
27] Although we cannot assume that the issues we identified exist
across all projects, they nevertheless represent areas for improvement
in monitoring antitrafficking projects. We also reviewed a set of 4
State Office to Combat and Monitor Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP)
antitrafficking projects in India, Israel, Afghanistan, and Costa Rica.
These projects were selected to illustrate some current monitoring and
evaluation practices for existing projects in different parts of the
world and different types of exploitation. They showed the variation in
monitoring practices that can only increase with sample size. Thus, the
projects provided the background information and context needed to
understand State G/TIP's current efforts to standardize monitoring
requirements. The reviewed documents for all projects included
proposals, applications for assistance, project descriptions, strategy
papers, concept papers, causal models, cooperative or grant agreements,
and periodic and final reports.
We also reviewed articles and books on monitoring, evaluation, and
statistics, such as Sampling by Steven K. Thompson, Wiley Series in
Probability and Mathematical Statistics (1992); Adaptive Sampling by
Stephen K. Thompson and George A.F., Seber, Wiley Series in Probability
and Mathematical Statistics (1996); Better Evaluation for Evidence-
Based Policy: Place Randomized Trials in Education, Criminology,
Welfare, and Health by Robert Baruch, The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science (2005), vol. 599, 6-18; Program
Evaluation Methods: Measurement and Attribution of Program Results,
Third Edition, Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat; and Monitoring
and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods and Approaches, the World Bank
(2004).
To examine suggestions for strengthening monitoring and evaluation, we
worked with the National Academy of Sciences to organize a 2-day expert
panel on challenges and alternative strategies for monitoring and
evaluating the results of international antitrafficking programs and
projects in April 2007. We invited the following groups of panel
participants:
* Experts with broad-based, subject-area knowledge of human
trafficking.
* Experts with specialized knowledge of monitoring and evaluation of
programs aimed at hidden populations similar to trafficking victims,
such as the homeless and irregular migrants. This group included
experts with specific knowledge of baseline data estimation of such
populations.
Panelists had backgrounds in academia, research, consulting, and
project implementation in the field. Using a nominal group technique,
panelists chose to focus on the intervention "safe return" as a
starting point for discussion. Experts provided presentations and
participated in a discussion and cross-fertilization of ideas. Using a
nominal group technique, panel members also ranked two topics in order
of importance to the human trafficking field--estimating the number of
trafficking victims and evaluability assessments. None of the panel
members were compensated for their work on this project. The following
experts participated in the panel:
* Richard Berk, Professor of Criminology and Statistics, Department of
Criminology, University of Pennsylvania:
* Robert Boruch, University Trustee Chair Professor, Graduate School of
Education and Statistics Department, Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania:
* Mario Thomas Gaboury, Professor and Chair of Criminal Justice,
University of New Haven:
* Adele Harrell, Consultant:
* Kristiina Kangaspunta, Chief, Anti-Human Trafficking Unit, United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
* Jonathan Martens, Counter-Trafficking Project Specialist, Counter-
Trafficking Division, International Organization for Migration:
* Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Research Associate, Pew Hispanic Center:
* Lisa Rende-Taylor, Technical Advisor to the United Nations Inter-
Agency Project on Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Subregion:
* Peter Reuter, Professor, School of Public Policy, Department of
Criminology, University of Maryland:
* W. Courtland Robinson, Assistant Professor, Center for Refugee and
Disaster Response, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:
* Debra Rog, Associate Director, Westat Corporation:
* Jane Nady Sigmon, Senior Coordinator for International Programs,
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, U.S. Department of
State:
We conducted our review from August 2006 to June 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected International Organizations Involved in Combating
Human Trafficking:
This appendix describes the general mission and antitrafficking
activities of 15 international organizations that implement
international antitrafficking projects.
Table 3: Selected International Organization Missions and Activities to
Combat Human Trafficking:
Worldwide organizations.
Organization/General mission: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC): Assist member countries to combat illicit drugs, crime, and
terrorism;
Activities to combat human trafficking: As the Secretariat of the
Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime and its protocols, including the Trafficking in Persons
Protocol, UNODC is required to "ensure the necessary coordination with
the secretariats of relevant international and regional organizations."
UNODC's Global Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons comprises data
collection, assessment, and technical cooperation.
Organization/General mission: International Labor Organization (ILO):
Promote social justice and internationally recognized human and labor
rights. The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work expresses the commitment of governments and employers' and
workers' organizations in four areas, including the elimination of
forced, compulsory, and child labor;
Activities to combat human trafficking: The International Program on
the Elimination of Child Labor aims to eliminate child labor by
strengthening national capacities and creating a worldwide movement to
combat it. The Special Action Program to Combat Forced Labor seeks to;
* raise global awareness and understanding of forced labor;
* assist governments to develop and implement new laws, policies, and
action plans;
* develop and disseminate guidance and training materials on forced
labor and trafficking; and;
* implement programs that integrate policy, institutional capacity
building, and direct support for the prevention of forced labor and
identification and rehabilitation of victims.
Organization/General mission: International Organization for Migration
(IOM): Ensure the orderly and humane management of migration, to
promote international cooperation on migration issues; to assist in the
search for practical solutions to migration problems; and to provide
humanitarian assistance to migrants, including refugees and internally
displaced people;
Activities to combat human trafficking: IOM's counter-trafficking
projects primarily aim to prevent human trafficking, and to protect
victims while offering options of safe and sustainable reintegration
and/or return. Activities include:
* Information campaigns that educate the public about human trafficking
and equip vulnerable populations with the information necessary to
protect themselves from the recruitment tactics of traffickers;
* Research on human trafficking that explores routes and trends, the
causes and consequences of human trafficking as well as the structures,
motivations, and modus operandi of organized criminal groups;
* Direct assistance to trafficking victims that provides accommodation
in safe places, medical and psychosocial support, skills development
and vocational training, reintegration assistance, and the options of
voluntary and dignified return to the country of origin or resettlement
to a third country in extreme cases;
* Technical cooperation that builds the capacity of government and
civil society institutions to better address the challenges posed by
human trafficking through specialized training and technical support in
the development of counter-trafficking policies and procedures, legal
frameworks, and infrastructural upgrades.
Organization/General mission: United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF):
Advocate for the protection of children's rights, help meet children's
basic needs, and aim to expand their opportunities;
Activities to combat human trafficking: UNICEF's Child Protection
Program focuses on;
* government commitment and capacity;
* legislation and enforcement;
* attitudes, customs and practices;
* open discussion;
* children's life skills, knowledge, and participation;
* family and community capacity;
* essential services, including prevention, recovery, and
reintegration; and;
* effective monitoring, reporting, and oversight.
Organization/General mission: Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS
(UNAIDS): Support efforts of 10 UN system organizations to help the
world prevent new HIV/AIDS infections, provide care for those already
infected, and mitigate the impact of the epidemic;
Activities to combat human trafficking: Using a human rights approach,
UNAIDS aims to address the root causes of human trafficking, including
poverty, limited access to education and jobs, and social and cultural
attitudes and practices that devalue women, girls, and children. UNAIDS
promotes law enforcement and other activities to prevent trafficking;
protect victims; punish traffickers; and target demand for the services
of trafficked workers, women, and girls. UNAIDS also advocates for
voluntary counseling and testing, the provision of HIV care and
treatment services, and the elimination of stigma and discrimination.
Organization/General mission: United Nations Development Program
(UNDP): Increase knowledge, experience, and resources to developing
countries in such areas as poverty, HIV/AIDS, energy and the
environment, democratic governance, and crisis prevention and recovery.
Focus on encouraging human rights and women's empowerment;
Activities to combat human trafficking: UNDP approaches trafficking as
a voluntary and involuntary migration issue. UNDP aims to identify the
factors that increase women's and girls' vulnerability to trafficking
and to develop responses for the facilitation of safe mobility.
Organization/General mission: United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO): Promote international cooperation
in the fields of education, science, culture, and communication;
Activities to combat human trafficking: UNESCO undertakes policy-
oriented research on specific factors leading to the trafficking of
women and children in pilot countries in Africa and Asia. The Project
to Fight Human Trafficking in Africa aims to promote effective and
culturally appropriate policymaking to combat trafficking in Western
and Southern Africa. It organizes training workshops for policymakers,
NGOs, community leaders, and the media to raise awareness and inspire
innovative policymaking. The Trafficking and HIV/AIDS Project attempts
to solve the problems of HIV/AIDS, trafficking, and nontraditional drug
use in the Greater Mekong subregion, by researching, developing, and
implementing programs that work to support sustainable, locally managed
projects with ethnic minorities.
Organization/General mission: United Nations Development Fund for Women
(UNIFEM): Provide financial and technical assistance to programs and
strategies to foster women's empowerment and gender equality. Cover the
gender issues of HIV/AIDS, poverty, economics, and violence;
Activities to combat human trafficking: UNIFEM addresses the
trafficking of women within the context of violence against women--as a
violation of their human rights and as a development issue.
Organization/General mission: United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR): Coordinate international action to protect refugees
and resolve refugee problems worldwide;
Activities to combat human trafficking: UNHCR provides a safeguard to
the rights and well-being of refugees so that they can exercise the
right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another country, with the
option to return home voluntarily, integrate locally, or resettle in a
third country.
Regional organizations.
Organization/General mission: Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE): Address a wide range of security concerns, including
arms control, confidence-and security-building, human rights, national
minorities, democratization, policing strategies, counterterrorism,
antitrafficking, and economic and environmental activities;
Activities to combat human trafficking: The Office of the Special
Representative and Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human
Beings supports the development and implementation of antitrafficking
policies in OSCE participating countries. In addition, the office
coordinates the activities of OSCE bodies, promotes cooperation among
the participating states, and raises the public and political profile
of trafficking in persons. The Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights assists countries in preventing trafficking and protecting
victims by;
* supporting the establishment of national referral mechanisms,;
* improving victim identification and assistance, and;
* enhancing trafficking victims' awareness of their rights.
The Office of the Coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental
Activities aims to address both the demand and supply side of
trafficking in human beings by;
* promoting self- regulation of the private sector;
* raising the awareness of trafficking in countries of destination, in
particular in western countries; and;
* creating economic empowerment opportunities for potential victims of
trafficking in countries of origin.
The OSCE Secretariat's Action Against Terrorism Unit, Conflict
Prevention Center, Strategic Police Matters Unit, Border Unit, the
Office of the Senior Gender Adviser, and field offices are also engaged
in combating human trafficking.
Organization/General mission: Organization of American States (OAS):
Strengthen cooperation on democratic values, defend common interests,
and debate the major issues facing the western hemisphere and the
world;
Activities to combat human trafficking: The Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Section's goals are to carry out antitrafficking efforts with a
regional perspective that allows OAS to address human trafficking in a
way that is difficult for any single national government. The section
provides the necessary logistical information for training seminars,
technical assistance to governments, exchange of information, and
proposals. Also, the section develops new information, monitors new
literature in the field, and catalogues existing reports and documents.
The focus of antitrafficking efforts consists of;
* broadening awareness and understanding of trafficking in persons,;
* sharing information with governments and civil society,;
* identifying policies that will reduce human trafficking,;
* working with officials on implementing concrete antitrafficking
measures, and;
* identifying new partners and financial resources for fighting
trafficking in the hemisphere.
Four key areas of action are to;
* foster national action by governments;
* advance effective antitrafficking best practices in prevention,
protection, investigation, and prosecution;
* gain new allies for the hemisphere; and;
* implement existing antitrafficking projects and training programs as
well as develop new ones.
Organization/General mission: Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN): Accelerate economic growth, social progress, and cultural
development for the participating countries in the southeast region of
Asia. Promote regional peace and stability through respect for justice
and the rule of law;
Activities to combat human trafficking: In 1997, ASEAN member countries
signed the Declaration on Transnational Crime, which commits members to
taking measures to combat transnational crimes, including human
trafficking. The organization's work program to implement this
declaration includes actions to enhance information exchange, increase
awareness of trafficking, support the criminalization of trafficking,
and develop regional training programs. In 2004, ASEAN member countries
signed the Declaration Against Trafficking in Persons, Particularly
Women and Children, which commits members to establishing a regional
focal network to combat trafficking and adopting measures to prevent
the fraudulent use of identity documents, among other things.
Multilateral development banks.
Organization/General mission: World Bank: Provide financial and
technical assistance to developing countries to promote education,
health, infrastructure, and communications to reduce global poverty and
improve living standards;
Activities to combat human trafficking: The World Bank conducts
analytical work on topics, such as gender or migration, that may
address the incidence of and factors leading to human trafficking and
child labor. The International Finance Corporation supports job
creation and skills improvement projects in Asia that assist vulnerable
populations, including human trafficking victims. In addition, the
corporation applies its performance standard related to child labor to
the projects it finances, in an effort to help client companies assess
and manage these issues.
Organization/General mission: Asian Development Bank (ADB): Reduce
poverty in Asia and the Pacific. ADB helps improve the quality of
people's lives by providing loans and technical assistance for a broad
range of development activities;
Activities to combat human trafficking: ADB conducts regional research
addressing the incidence and factors leading to the trafficking of
women and children in Asia. Where trafficking vulnerabilities are
identified, ADB recommends that its borrowers include an
antitrafficking component (normally involving community and laborer
awareness raising, targeted poverty reduction program for women and
children, and capacity building of NGOs and community groups) often in
conjunction with an HIV/AIDS prevention component. ADB also facilitates
policy dialogues within and among countries in Asia, especially through
its active regional cooperation assistance.
Organization/General mission: Inter-American Development Bank (IDB):
Contribute to the acceleration of the process of economic and social
development of the regional developing member countries;
Activities to combat human trafficking: IDB seeks opportunities within
its Poverty Reduction and Social Equity and Social Development
Strategies to address the issue of human trafficking in its borrowing
member countries. IDB promotes mainstreaming the subject in the
traditionally financed operations in the areas of violence, social
exclusion, attention to vulnerable groups, gender, citizen security,
justice reform, and corruption. IDB encourages countries to include
human trafficking in their country strategies and provides technical
assistance grants and citizen security loans with trafficking elements.
In addition, IDB has launched communications campaigns to improve
awareness and visibility of human trafficking and promote the use of
emergency hotlines, which are also used to gather information on origin
and destination locations of trafficking victims and trafficking
routes.
Sources: International organizations and development banks.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III:Methods Suggested by Expert Panel to Estimate the Number
of Human Trafficking Victims:
This appendix describes the sampling methods suggested by a GAO-
convened panel of experts to estimate the number of human trafficking
victims.
Table 4: Sampling Methods Suggested by Expert Panel to Estimate the
Number of Human Trafficking Victims:
Method: Stratified random sampling to oversample rare units;
Description of method: The population is divided into subgroups, and
random samples are selected from each subgroup;
Application to human trafficking: Geographic areas are divided into
subareas, which allows for a more-intensive search of cases in
trafficking "hot spots.".
Method: Double sampling;
Description of method: After selecting a sample of primary units to
obtain preliminary estimates, a sample of secondary units is selected
to obtain more accurate counts;
Application to human trafficking: First, a preliminary estimate of
human trafficking cases is obtained from reported cases in certain
geographic areas. Second, a more precise estimate of actual victims is
obtained by focusing on the areas with a higher concentration of
reported cases.
Method: Adaptive cluster sampling;
Description of method: After an initial set of units is selected,
additional units in its neighborhood are added to the sample;
Application to human trafficking: After an initial trafficking case is
identified, additional cases in its "vicinity" are identified. The goal
is to find clusters that are usually defined geographically.
Method: Capture-recapture sampling;
Description of method: Two random samples are independently drawn, and
the number of common and different units is used to estimate the size
of the population;
Application to human trafficking: Two random samples of reported
trafficking cases are independently drawn, and the number of common and
different cases is used to estimate the total number of reported
cases.[A].
Method: Indirect sampling;
Description of method: A "sisterhood approach" to sampling involves
sampling a related population that is not as difficult to sample as the
population of interest. An estimate is obtained by using the
relationship between the "hard-" and "easy-to- reach" populations;
Application to human trafficking: Relatives or friends of trafficking
victims are interviewed, and an estimate is obtained on the basis of
the relationship between the two groups.
Method: Sentinel site surveillance;
Description of method: A nonrandom sample of sites is selected over
time to observe changes in characteristics;
Application to human trafficking: Sites with higher concentrations of
trafficking cases can be identified and observed over time to determine
whether there is a change in the number of victims found or rescued, or
both.
Method: Snowball sampling;
Description of method: An initial observation is taken and augmented by
the participants. This is a participant-driven approach;
Application to human trafficking: An identified victim identifies other
victims with whom he or she has been in contact. In turn, these victims
identify others.
Method: Model-based estimator;
Description of method: A model of human trafficking is developed,
followed by empirical work aimed at obtaining parameter estimates;
Application to human trafficking: Based on the underlying relationships
of a human trafficking model, a multiplier of identified cases is used
to extrapolate to a total or aggregate estimate.
Method: Use of decoys;
Description of method: Decoys are used to estimate an elusive
population. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau used decoys in studies
of the homeless to estimate how many of the homeless were not found;
Application to human trafficking: An initial estimate of reported
victims can be adjusted on the basis of the number of decoys that are
not found by the enumerators to account for victims who may have been
missed.
Method: Random approximation;
Description of method: This procedure is an approximation of and is
more practical than true random sampling. For example, systematic
random sampling requires random sampling in the first step, while the
units in the second step are selected in some systematic fashion;
Application to human trafficking: Every 5[TH] or 10th employment
establishment, household, or reintegrated trafficking victim is
selected to generate an estimate that can be used without losing the
ability to generalize.
Method: Sampling with certainty;
Description of method: Particular units are removed from the sampling
design to reduce the variation in the estimates. These units are
selected "with certainty," while the "noncertainty" units are randomly
selected;
Application to human trafficking: Some geographic areas with a known
high incidence of trafficking can be included in the estimation with
certainty, while sampling procedures can be applied in other parts of a
country or region.
Source: GAO analysis of expert panel proceedings.
[A] This procedure was used by ILO to obtain its global estimate of
forced labor. For a detailed discussion, see Patrick Belser, Michaelle
de Cock, and Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in
the World, ILO (Geneva: April 2005).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Jul 13 2007
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Human
Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects are
Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements," GAO Job Code 320444.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Carla Menares Bury, Multilateral Affairs Coordinator, Office to Monitor
and Combat Trafficking in Persons, at (202) 312-9649.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc: GAO - Jeremy Latimer:
G/TIP - Mark Lagon:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Proiects
are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements (GAO-07-1034, GAO Code
320444):
Thank you for allowing the Department of State the opportunity to
comment on the draft report "Human Trafficking: Monitoring and
Evaluation of International Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest
Improvements."
The report confirms several challenges inherent in foreign assistance
efforts, including anti-human trafficking programs. Coordination is
always important but challenging, considering the number and range of
actors involved. Monitoring project performance is essential, but
confronts the reality of limited staff resources. Rigorous project
evaluation is invaluable but, often, too expensive to be cost effective
for small projects. Based on an internal assessment in early 2006, the
Department of State initiated steps to improve anti-human trafficking
program management including protocols to strengthen anti-trafficking
project design and monitoring.
We note that program monitoring is always necessary, and it is in place
and improving. In this sense, the Report's title suggesting that
monitoring is "limited" is not apt.
The Department is pleased to report that three specific initiatives,
currently underway, respond directly to the grant-related issues
highlighted in the GAO Report:
* New grant awards include indicators and targets:
* Guidelines for Embassy participation in monitoring grants that are
awarded and managed in Washington will be issued with each grant.
* Additional funds will be allocated to evaluation activities this
year:
The State Department's international programming is an important
component of the U.S. Government's strategy to combat trafficking
abroad. Department-funded programs represent a more limited range in
terms of program size and duration than referenced in the GAO's Report.
The typical project is funded for $250,000 over 12 to 18 months. This
limited project scope reflects a strategic decision to use scarce
dollars in this new and emerging field to support numerous discrete,
targeted projects around the world. The Department's strategy has
helped establish new partners in the fight against trafficking and
build the capacity of local non- governmental organizations (NGOs)
toward management of larger, longer- term projects.
It is important to recognize these strategic programming decisions as
we move forward in improving efforts to evaluate the impact of anti-
trafficking programs. Most State Department projects, including those
funded by the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/
TIP) and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), and
sometimes regional bureaus, are quite different from programs funded by
the Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), which are typically multi-year and multi-million
dollar projects. Larger and longer-term projects are more suitable
candidates for impact evaluation than shorter, targeted projects.
While we recognize that effective project design lays the foundation
for assessment of project effectiveness, we make a distinction between
project monitoring and program evaluation. Project monitoring involves
the ongoing assessment of grant activities to ensure that the terms and
conditions of the grant are being met, objectives accomplished, and
federal funds are spent responsibly. Program evaluation involves the
assessment of a project's short-term and long-term impact, which
entails a systematic and comprehensive analysis of activities and
outcomes. Impact evaluation studies are critical to identify the most
effective programmatic practices for replication; however, it is always
important to consider which programs are best suited for this type of
study as many small targeted projects of limited duration are worthy of
funding, and always require monitoring, but are not necessarily
appropriate for evaluation.
The program and grant officers within the Department have monitored
anti-trafficking grant projects within the limits of available
resources to ensure that project goals and objectives are implemented;
that Federal grant funds were expended consistent with the provisions
of pertinent statutes, regulations, agency administrative requirements;
and that Federal funds are used responsibly.
The Department strongly supports the value of applying rigorous
evaluation methods. It appreciated the opportunity to have G/TIP
participate in the experts' meeting hosted by the GAO on this subject.
Relevant Department offices and bureaus consistently strive to improve
programmatic performance in order to strengthen the U.S. Government's
ability to lead the charge against trafficking at home and abroad. The
Department is pleased to provide the following comments on GAO's
specific recommendations.
The Department generally agrees with the assertion that the anti-
trafficking field is well-served by more information about the nature
and severity of human trafficking; however, projects are not always
designed with the purpose of having an immediate effect on either. Many
projects funded by the State Department are designed to be of more
limited size, scope, and duration with shorter or more proximate
objectives that lay a foundation for future efforts that promote
systemic change. Further, not all projects will contribute to the
development of better data on the incidence of human trafficking.
Examples include activities such as creating victim-friendly interview
rooms at police stations; assisting governments to draft comprehensive
anti-trafficking laws; or training a small cadre of law enforcement
officers who can train others. These projects often serve as the
foundation for projects that contribute more directly to long-term
impact.
The Department is committed to investigating methods of assessing the
effectiveness of short-term projects and the impact of longer-term
projects on the nature and severity of trafficking in target areas. G/
TIP, for example, plans to fund evaluation activities in the coming
years in order to promote promising practices for future replication.
With the limited funding available for research-related activities, G/
TIP will give priority to assessing whether programs are suitable for
an impact study and conducting impact assessments of selected programs,
rather than developing a global estimate of the incidence of
trafficking. We are seeking to evaluate our projects using
methodologies and rigor appropriate to the size, scope, and duration of
our projects.
PRM is also working to improve performance monitoring by supporting the
development of a manual on performance indicators (PI) due to be
completed by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) by the
end of the year. This manual, intended as reference material, is
proposed as a compilation of PIs covering the 3 Ps (protection,
prevention and prosecution). IOM will incorporate these PIs in its
work, and will disseminate this tool, making it available to other
partners in the fight against trafficking. The completion of the PI
manual will help IOM use the same performance indicators across
Missions for comparable program activities, such as international
voluntary returns, or reintegration activities. When compiled, the
reported information will be a valuable tool to help evaluate the
effectiveness of specific program activities. However, given PRM's
limited capacity to compile and compare country and regional data, PRM
will approach IOM to discuss options for such analysis.
The Department's funding decisions are increasingly guided by the
analysis compiled in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report. This
analysis provides a roadmap to target priorities for foreign assistance
programming.
The Department supports the idea that effective project design is
critical to successful project implementation and program monitoring.
It can also lay the foundation for evaluation, depending upon the
characteristics of the project. At the same time, we would like to flag
that this element often requires human and financial resources.
The Department has already initiated efforts to improve the design of
anti-trafficking projects by more clearly describing the required
program elements in recent requests for proposals. G/TIP'S Fiscal Years
(FY) 2006 and 2007 solicitations for proposals required applicants to
clearly articulate goals and objectives, identify activities to support
each goal and objective, and develop appropriate indicators of success,
including targets. The information provided in this required proposal
format will be the cornerstone for the design of unique project
monitoring plans for FY 07. This information will also feed into
consideration of whether the project should be subjected to an
evaluation study, i.e., the evaluability assessment. G/TIP's efforts
have been recognized as a model for other offices within the
Department. For the past two years, PRM-funded IOM anti-trafficking
projects also have included an overall framework of activities with
goals, specific objectives, and specific performance indicators.
G/TIP has increased the number of Program Officers on staff (from two
to five between 2005 and 2007) and given greater attention to the
development of performance indicators and the conduct of site
monitoring visits. In addition, G/TIP will issue guidance to the
relevant U.S. embassy officers when each new FY 07 grant is awarded;
the guidance will provide key project information and will recommend
procedures for embassy participation in monitoring, given embassy
staffing and workloads.
The Department does not think a relatively short timeframe for a
project is a design weakness. We think U.S. Government funds should be
used to support a variety of approaches, including some targeted, short-
term projects with clearly defined, limited activities especially in
local areas lacking major international funding or organizational
support. Such projects can be important components of a larger anti-
trafficking strategy, including strengthening the capacity of local
organizations. Therefore, not all projects will be suitable for an
impact evaluation. G/TIP is currently working on a design for
conducting evaluability assessments for selected projects that meet
minimum criteria for an impact assessment.
While baseline data is an important component of many projects, the
Department disagrees with GAO's assertion that it is required for all
interventions. We target countries with low rankings in the annual
Trafficking in Persons Report for limited anti-trafficking funding;
countries that, typically, have the political will to address the
problem, but limited economic resources to do so. Projects selected for
funding address specific weaknesses or deficiencies identified in the
annual Trafficking in Persons Report with the goal of assisting the
host country in addressing this issue and improving their tier ranking.
We will seek to obtain baseline data to help assess program
effectiveness where appropriate, and when such data is available.
In summary, monitoring and evaluation - which are different - are
extremely important. Anti-trafficking program monitoring is essential,
and has been improved tangibly in the last two years. Evaluation is
very beneficial whenever feasible and when a project is not so limited
or of short duration that it adds little value.
GAO reinforces what the Department already knows: monitoring and
evaluation of international programs are essential if foreign
assistance is to be effective. We will implement the recommendations in
the report, most of which are entirely consistent with the Department's
current activities and direction, in ways that are relevant and
appropriate to the mandates of the State Department offices and bureaus
engaged in path-breaking anti-human trafficking efforts.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State letter
dated July 13, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. State said that the report's title is not apt because program
monitoring is in place and improving. We believe that monitoring is
limited for the following reasons: for the 23 projects we reviewed, the
majority did not have a logic model that clearly explains how
activities are linked to project goals; the majority of these projects
also did not specify targets that establish benchmarks for measuring
performance; of the 10 projects that did specify targets, only 5
explained how targets were set; and, finally, State lacked written
guidance for field-level oversight.
2. State noted that many of its projects are designed to be of more
limited size, scope, and duration, and that such projects are not
necessarily suitable for evaluation. They also added that larger and
longer-term projects are more suitable candidates for impact evaluation
than shorter projects. Finally, State commented that a relatively short
time frame for projects is not a design weakness. In the report, we
state that the impact of a shorter-term, smaller-scale intervention may
be difficult to attribute and quantify.
3. State noted that baseline data are not required for all
interventions. We disagree. In the report, we state that baseline and
target values of indicators are needed to assess project performance.
For example, baselines for a victim assistance program could include
the number of victims served or assisted, or the number of vocational
training sessions held. Moreover, project-level estimates are needed
for baselines by which to evaluate how effectively interventions are
reducing trafficking. For this type of baseline, panelists suggested
methods for baseline estimation, such as gathering data in trafficking
hot spots, that would allow for more rigorous impact evaluations.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
Mr. Thomas Melito:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Jul 13 2007:
Dear Mr. Melito:
Thank you for giving the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft report entitled Human Trafficking:
Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects are Limited, but
Experts Suggest Improvements (GAO-07-1034). The report provides a good
overall assessment of international cooperation regarding anti-
trafficking efforts and the need to enhance collaboration among key
agencies and governments, and highlights important areas for improving
monitoring and evaluation of U.S. Government-funded anti-trafficking
programs.
While we understand that the report was limited to anti-trafficking
projects and fieldwork conducted in Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico,
and was meant to assess U.S. Government efforts as a whole, there are a
number of areas that do not fully reflect efforts particular federal
agencies are carrying out in the monitoring and evaluation of anti-
trafficking projects. For example, the report indicates that (1)
federal agencies funding anti-trafficking projects lack key elements in
order to appropriately monitor project implementation and
effectiveness, and (2) not much is known about project impact due to
challenges in conducting evaluations. DOL would like to make clear that
it uses several mechanisms, including process evaluations, in its
monitoring and oversight of international technical assistance
projects, including anti-trafficking projects, to ensure that U.S.
Government funds lead to planned outputs and results.
The attachment includes DOL comments divided into two sections. The
first section provides general comments regarding DOL's monitoring and
evaluation of anti-trafficking projects. The second section provides
specific comments noting where clarification is needed or where further
information could be provided to better support the report's
conclusions.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. If you
have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (202) 693-4770.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charlotte Ponticelli:
Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs:
Attachment:
U.S. Department of Labor's Comments on the draft GAO report: Human
Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects are
Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements (GAO-07-1034):
July 13, 2007:
General Comments:
1. Throughout the report, specifically pages 19-26, GAO notes that U.S.
Government anti-trafficking projects do not have sufficient monitoring
elements to measure performance nor do they conduct evaluations to
determine effectiveness or impact. However, federal government agencies
are carrying out these activities, or are making efforts to monitor and
evaluate anti-trafficking projects. In many cases, GAO seldom mentions
specific examples of areas where these activities are occurring. In
addition to the supporting documentation DOL already provided to the
GAO, the following contains further explanation on its monitoring and
evaluation of anti-trafficking projects.
DOL's international technical assistance projects to reduce and prevent
exploitive child labor, including anti-trafficking, undergo a common
project cycle that includes (1) defining and analyzing the problem; (2)
designing the project with a logical framework that includes measurable
objectives and indicators of achievement; (3) monitoring the project
for performance and results against a performance monitoring plan
(PMP); and (4) evaluating the project's effects, outcomes, and lessons
learned. In addition, all of DOL's international technical assistance
projects, including anti-trafficking projects, have performance
indicators to measure the outcome and progress of all projects, and
undergo mid-term and final process evaluations to determine if intended
services were delivered to targeted beneficiaries.
Moreover, DOL's anti-trafficking projects are designed to monitor the
contribution of each project to DOL's Strategic Goal 2 - A Competitive
Workforce: Meet the competitive labor demands of the worldwide economy
by enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the workforce
development and regulatory systems that assist workers and employers in
meeting the challenges of global competition. Within this strategic
goal are outcome goals, Outcome Goal 2K - Contribute to the Elimination
of Child Labor Internationally. For example, DOL's Bureau of
International Labor Affairs'(ILAB) GPRA indicators include: (1) "the
number of children prevented or withdrawn from exploitive child labor
provided education and/or training opportunities as a result of DOL
funded child labor elimination projects, " and (2) "the number of
countries with increased capacity to address child labor as a result of
DOL funded projects."
a. Monitoring of DOL's International Anti-Trafficking Projects. To
ensure that inputs (i.e., resources that support the project) lead to
planned outcomes (results), DOL engages in monitoring and providing
oversight to project implementation and progress. The principal
monitoring and oversight vehicles to ensure all project activities are
covered and results are achieved in a timely manner and in compliance
with U.S. regulations are:
b. the use of project workplans and PMPs, technical and financial
progress reports, site visits, project evaluations, and audits and
attestation engagements.
c. Monitoring of ILAB Projects through Audits and Attestation
Engagements. ILAB's Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human
Trafficking (OCFT) utilizes audits and attestation engagements as key
monitoring tools of their projects.
ILO Audits. OCFT has engaged the ILO's External Auditor, currently the
National Audit Organization of the United Kingdom, to conduct audits of
a sample of the projects funded under the cooperative agreement with
the ILO's International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor
(IPEC). The IPEC projects to be audited are selected by OCFT managers
using a risk ranking assessment, and the audits are conducted in
accordance with terms of reference negotiated by OCFT, the ILO and the
External Auditor. The objectives of the audits conducted by the ILO's
External Auditor are similar to the objectives of the attestation
engagements of the Education Initiative projects, specifically to:
* Form an opinion on whether the financial transactions reflected in
the Financial Status Report (SF269) are presented fairly and in all
material respects in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles as applied by the United Nations System of Accounting
Standards;
* Determine whether the project is complying with all of the terms of
the relevant cooperative agreement; and,
* Assess the reliability of the performance data reported on the
project's most recent technical progress reports, based on a risk
assessment to provide a sufficient assurance, through one or more
visits to project field sites.
Under current agreements, the External Auditor will conduct
approximately 20 audits of IPEC projects between August 2006 and June
2008.
Attestation Engagements of OCFT Education Initiative Grantees. ILAB/
OCFT has entered into a Blanket Purchase Agreement with a certified
public accounting firm to conduct independent attestation engagements
of OCFT Education Initiative grantees. The purpose of these attestation
engagements is to:
* determine whether the grantees are complying with the terms of their
OCFT cooperative agreements and with the Department of Labor's
regulations for grants (29 CFR Part 95);
* ensure that financial reports are accurate and reliable; and:
* assess the accuracy and reliability of the performance data from the
grantees' progress reports that support OCFT's performance goals and
measures in the Department's performance budget and Annual Report on
Performance and Accountability.
In an attestation engagement, an auditor may assess a broad range of
financial or non-financial subjects and report on the results. The
results of each attestation engagement conducted by OCFT's contract
auditors are summarized in an examination report, which requires the
auditor to express an opinion on the audit objectives and related
assertions by grantee officials. As prescribed by professional audit
standards, grantee officials sign a management representation letter
addressed to the auditor that provides assertions about the grantee's
compliance with the regulations and cooperative agreement provisions
and the reliability of their financial and performance data, and the
auditor's opinion expresses conclusions about the fairness of
management's assertions. The report also includes the details of the
auditors' findings, recommendations for improvement, and funds that
should be recovered from the grantee, if any.
The Blanket Purchase Agreement requires that the auditors conduct their
work in accordance with the standards on attestation engagements
published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA) and included in the U.S. General Accounting Office's Government
Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision (the Yellow Book). OCFT staff
responsible for monitoring the audits is required to be familiar with
the provisions of the Blanket Purchase Agreement and with Chapters 2, 3
and 6 of the Yellow Book.
d. Evaluation of DOL's International Anti-Trafficking Proiects. All DOL-
funded international technical assistance projects, including anti-
trafficking projects, must undergo independent mid-term and final
evaluations. Mid-term evaluations take place as close as possible to
the mid-point of the project. Their intended purpose is to evaluate the
project to date and to provide recommendations regarding possible
changes that may improve project performance during its second half of
implementation. Final evaluations take place close to the end of the
project and are oriented more towards lessons learned and
sustainability issues. In some cases, expanded final evaluations are
conducted among projects that often include a limited "repeat baseline"
or follow-up study. The aim is to try to look at the details of a
sample of beneficiaries to document changes that have occurred and
learn from these experiences.
2. The GAO report has a strong emphasis on conducting impact
evaluations with randomized trials, and seems to understate the value
of carrying out qualitative, process/ implementation evaluations. In
the international development community, carrying out impact
evaluations is an emerging field. While DOL agrees with the need to
carry out more systematic impact evaluations in order to determine the
effectiveness of key interventions, we have also learned through
dialogue with evaluation experts and oversight of technical assistance
projects that carrying out process evaluations is a prerequisite and
compliments the formulation of successful impact assessments. In
general, DOL suggests clarifying statements where evaluations are
mentioned generally to differentiate between process and impact
evaluations. Otherwise, it seems that evaluations are not being
conducted at all.
In addition, DOL recognizes that impact evaluations, particularly
randomized controls, are key to measuring the effectiveness of
particular interventions but not appropriate in all projects. It would
be extremely helpful if GAO could outline when it is appropriate to do
randomized trials. In cases, where randomized trials are not
appropriate, suggesting other means of evaluation would be beneficial.
Specific Comments:
1. In the Executive Summary, pages 4 and 19: "U.S.-government funded
anti-trafficking projects often lack some important elements that allow
projects to be monitored, and little is known about project impact due
to difficulties in conducting evaluations."
* DOL suggests changing "often" to "sometimes" since all DOL
international technical assistance project, including anti-trafficking
projects, are designed to include project workplans and project
monitoring plans.
* DOL agrees that little is known about the impact of key project
interventions. However, the statement seems to suggest that evaluations
of any sort are not taking place and that project outcomes and results
are not being assessed.
2. Page 4: "Project documents we reviewed generally include monitoring
elements, such as an overarching goal and related activities, but they
often lack other monitoring elements such as targets for measuring
performance."
* DOL suggests changing "often" to "sometimes" since all our project
documents contain targets for measuring performance.
3. Page 8, Table 1: The figures listed in the current table are
outdated. The current total figure DOL has for FY2001-2006 is
$186,095,141 (or $186,395,141 if you include MACRO TVPRA research); FY
2001 is $22,264,536, FY 2005 is $35,900,000, and FY 2006 is $28,048,000
(not including MACRO TVPRA research). All of the other years match up
with these figures.
Specifically the figures in the report for FY 2001 and 2005 included
projects that were misclassified. In addition, the FY06 has the
$300,000 for MACRO TVPRA research included.
4. Page 20: "In contrast, a Labor-funded project in Mexico clearly
links project goals and activities."
* DOL suggests including "Labor-funded projects in Indonesia, Mexico,
and Thailand" since all DOL-funded technical assistance projects,
including anti-trafficking projects, are required to link goals and
activities.
5. Page 21: "., only 10 specify targets by which performance is
measured."
* All DOL projects are required to specify number of beneficiaries
targeted prior to project funding and implementation.
6. Pages 21-22: DOL suggests including information on project
monitoring efforts. DOL's Operations Manual and Management Procedures
and Guidelines were submitted as part of supporting documentation
provided to GAO.
7. Page 4 and 23: There are several references to the "questionable
estimates of the number of trafficking victims," and the "need for
baselines by which to evaluate how effectively interventions are
reducing trafficking."
* DOL suggests providing more clarification to statements regarding
baseline estimates and the impact of interventions. It is unclear
whether the baseline estimates are referring to global estimates of
trafficking victims or estimates of trafficking victims at project-
level sites. In determining impact of interventions, the project-level
is more appropriate than national, regional, or global estimates.
8. Page 25: ".do not trace victims over time"
* DOL projects include a monitoring component that requires projects to
monitor the work and education status of project participants during
the life of the project. Each project must ensure the effective
prevention and withdrawal of targeted individuals through education and
training and assess the retention of participants in project
activities, and the completion of those activities.
9. Page 26: "For example, an evaluation of Labor-funded project."
* DOL would like to clarify that while the project was not designed to
evaluate impact, it was designed to monitor performance and outcomes.
For example, as a result of the DOL-funded anti-trafficking project in
Thailand, 202 child trafficking victims or at-risk children were placed
in education and/or vocational training, and 295 children victims or at-
risk children received legal services. A major objective of the project
was to secure citizenship for tribal minority children and their
families, who were vulnerable to trafficking, so they could be afforded
education and employment rights. The project prepared documentation for
citizenship applications for 5,059 children, submitted a total of
11,194 citizenship applications for children and their parents, and
secured approval of 5,131 applications by the end of the project.
10. Page 32, DOL would like to clarify that "rigorous evaluation
methodologies" may also include process evaluations.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Labor letter
dated July 13, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. Labor noted that federal agencies are carrying out monitoring and
evaluation activities or are making efforts to improve monitoring and
evaluation of antitrafficking activities. Labor also provided details
of its monitoring policies, procedures, and activities. We recognize
that Labor has monitoring procedures and activities in place, and we
revised text in several locations to provide further clarification on
Labor's activities. We clarified that all four Labor projects in
Indonesia, Mexico, and Thailand clearly link goals and activities,
specify targets, and explain how targets were set. We added language
stating that Labor engaged ILO's external auditor to conduct audits of
a sample of ILO's projects to eliminate child labor and contracted with
a certified public accounting firm to conduct independent attestation
engagements of its Education Initiative projects. We believe the
overall monitoring of antitrafficking projects is limited because the
projects funded by the other five agencies did not have the elements of
monitoring we found in Labor's projects.
2. Labor stated that it requires midterm and final evaluations for its
technical assistance projects, and that, in some cases, it engages in
longer-term follow-up studies. We revised the text to further clarify
and recognize Labor's evaluation requirements and activities. In
addition, we added text specifying that Labor funds follow-up studies
to document changes that have occurred to a sample of beneficiaries
over time.
3. Labor agreed with the need to carry out more systematic impact
evaluations, but also emphasized that process evaluations are an
important prerequisite of impact evaluations. Labor further commented
that randomized trials are not appropriate for all projects, and
requested that we specify where agencies should conduct randomized
trials and where other methods would be more appropriate. We agree that
process evaluations are important and revised the text to further
differentiate process evaluations from impact evaluations. We believe
each agency should determine whether randomized trials are appropriate
for the specific project they are evaluating.
4. We made changes to the draft of this report on the basis of Labor's
specific technical comments, where appropriate.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the United States Agency for International
Development:
USAID:
From The American People:
Jul 16 2007:
Mr. Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Melito:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) formal response on the draft GAO report entitled "Human
Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are
Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements" (July 2007) (07-1034). USAID
appreciates the thoughtfulness of this GAO report. The challenges of
coordination, monitoring and evaluation are issues with which we are
concerned. As the report notes, considerable efforts have been made to
coordinate within the U.S. government (USG) and with other
organizations; USAID will continue to work within the interagency
process in Washington and in the field.
We agree that monitoring and evaluation of our anti-trafficking efforts
are very important and that they rely on availability of both human and
financial resources. The issues inherent in evaluation of anti-
trafficking activities are particularly challenging because there is no
baseline against which to measure progress. Even on a local level,
obtaining good estimates of the number of individuals who have been
trafficked is extremely difficult because of the shifting underground
nature of the phenomenon, the gray areas within it, and the reluctance
of most victims to identify themselves as trafficking victims.
Trafficking-in-persons data accurate enough to use as the baseline in a
quantitative impact evaluation would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to collect.
Evaluation standards must be adapted to fit the context of anti-
trafficking activities. For example, the use of control groups or
randomized trials might be suitable for awareness raising activities
but would not be suitable in projects that focus on victim services.
Trafficking victims suffer from psycho-social problems, are subject to
threats of violent reprisals from traffickers, and face stigma and
shame in their families and communities. For these and other reasons,
they often are hesitant to identify themselves as victims of
trafficking after their rescue or escape. The well-being of victims
must be of primary concern in designing control group evaluations as it
is in designing anti-trafficking interventions.
USAID is very decentralized, is operational in all countries in which
it supports activities, and tends to have multi-year projects and field
staff who are trained in project design. Not all USG agencies operate
the same way and should be treated separately, building on the
strengths and addressing the weaknesses of each.
USAID has capacity and a track record in a number of areas which are
relevant to evaluation and monitoring. We developed the logical
framework more than two decades ago and have run many training courses
in project design. The Agency has supported training in monitoring and
evaluation and last year sponsored training for representatives of NGOs
addressing human trafficking in India and Bangladesh to strengthen
their technical capabilities in evaluation. USAID can offer its
training and experience in monitoring and evaluation and project design
to other parts of the USG working to combat trafficking in persons.
USAID developed and supported a mapping project on victims of
trafficking, vulnerable populations and anti-trafficking efforts for
the Mekong and the Philippines and Indonesia in 2004. We could provide
the methodology for mapping human trafficking routes, developing
certain baseline data and detailing responses to trafficking in persons
based on the mapping study done in 2004.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mosina H. Jordan:
Counselor to the Agency:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Department Of Health Human Services:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
Jul 20 2007:
Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Melito:
The Department has reviewed GAO Draft Report entitled: Human
Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects are
Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements" (GAO 07-1034).
Although we do not have any comments, we find this report to be a sound
document that substantively covers the wide range of programs and
services available to combat human trafficking.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this draft before
its publication.
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Vincent J. Ventimiglia:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Cheryl Goodman, Assistant Director; Jeremy Latimer; Christina Werth;
Todd M. Anderson; Gergana Danailova-Trainor; Terry Richardson; and
Debbie Chung made key contributions to this report. In addition,
Elizabeth Curda, Bruce Kutnick, Mary Moutsos, Barbara Stolz, and
Susanna Kuebler provided technical or legal assistance.
(320444):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed
to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad, GAO-06-825 (Washington,
D.C.: July 18, 2006).
[2] In 2003, the President announced the launch of a $50 million
initiative to support organizations active in combating trafficking and
child sex tourism, and in rescuing women and children.
[3] Pub. L. No. 106-386.
[4] Congress amended and reauthorized this act--the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 and the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. (Pub. L. Nos. 108-193 and 109-
164.)
[5] This agreement, also known as the Palermo Protocol, seeks to
prevent trafficking, protect victims, and promote antitrafficking
cooperation among nations. The protocol supplements the U.N. Convention
Against Transnational Organized Crime. It was opened for signature in
Palermo, Italy, in December 2000.
[6] We issued our first report, GAO-06-825, in July 2006. See also
Human Trafficking: A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the
Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking
Crimes, GAO-07-915 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007), which addresses
U.S. federal law enforcement agencies' efforts to investigate and
prosecute human trafficking crimes in the United States.
[7] The Palermo Protocol defines trafficking in persons as the
recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of
persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of
coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power
or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation
includes, at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others
or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, or practices similar to slavery, servitude, or the removal of
organs.
[8] Under the TVPA, victims of severe forms of trafficking are defined
as those persons subject to (1) sex trafficking in which a commercial
sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person
induced to perform such acts is under age 18 or (2) the recruitment,
harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for
labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, for
the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt
bondage, or slavery. The TVPA does not specify movement across
international boundaries as a condition of trafficking; it does not
require the transportation of victims from one locale to another. (Pub.
L. No. 106-386.)
[9] UNICEF was not able to break out budget data for trafficking-
specific projects or activities. According to State G/TIP data, U.S.
government support to UNICEF for antitrafficking projects from fiscal
years 2002 to 2006 totaled $7.14 million.
[10] The Chief Executives Board furthers coordination and cooperation
on substantive and management issues facing UN system organizations.
The board brings together on a regular basis the executive heads of the
organizations of the UN system, under the chairmanship of the UN
Secretary General.
[11] The Paris Declaration, endorsed on March 2, 2005, is an
international agreement under the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development that aims to provide a practical, action- oriented road
map to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development. The 56
partnership commitments are organized around 5 key principles:
ownership, alignment, harmonization, managing for results, and mutual
accountability. The United States is one of the participating
countries.
[12] National Security Presidential Directive 22 (signed on Dec. 16,
2002).
[13] UN Chief Executives Board High Level Committee on Programs, Follow-
up to CEB/HLCP decisions: Curbing Transnational Crime, CEB/2004/
HLCP/VIII/CRP (Sept. 9, 2004).
[14] The United States is the only government donor that implements
antitrafficking projects in Mexico.
[15] To inform our site visits in Mexico, Indonesia, and Thailand, we
requested project documents for U.S.-funded antitrafficking projects
that were being implemented during the time of our review. These
documents are not generalizable to a larger universe. We received
documents for 23 projects. The projects are illustrative of the U.S.
agencies' currently applied monitoring practices. The 23 projects were
funded or implemented by 6 U.S. agencies: State (11), Labor (4), USAID
(3), Justice (2), HHS (2), and DHS (1).
[16] State G/TIP officials told us that the office has had 4 program
officers for only a few months. For more than a year, the office had 2
or fewer officers.
[17] GAO-06-825.
[18] IOM has the only global database, which contains systematically
collected standardized data on actual victims assisted by IOM.
According to IOM, 30 missions input data into the global database in
2007. The information covers information about trafficked victims from
more than 100 source and destination countries.
[19] In commenting on a draft of this report, IOM noted that it can
share with external parties nonpersonal aggregate data from the
database upon written request. The IOM Counter-Trafficking Division
also produces quarterly statistical reports based on the data from the
database.
[20] G/TIP, in collaboration with PRM, IOM, and other organizations, is
currently developing core indicators in an attempt to work toward
commonly agreed-upon criteria for victim identification and assistance
as well as for data collection and analysis.
[21] In commenting on a draft of this report, ILO suggested that it is
useful to clearly define the scope of the impact that can be measured
within the time frame and levels of results. For example, the expected
impact on trafficking differs depending on whether one is looking at
one project only, a collection of projects from one source of funding
within a country, all of the projects and activities within a country,
or the impact of all projects in all countries from one source of
funding.
[22] Agencies have required or employed various qualitative
methodologies such as interviews, focus group discussions, direct
observation techniques, and rapid assessment techniques.
[23] According to GAO's Performance Measurement and Evaluation:
Definitions and Relationships, GAO-05-739SP (Washington, D.C.: May
2005), there are four types of evaluations: process, outcome, impact,
and cost-benefit analysis.
[24] For example, according to IOM officials, IOM's mission in Kiev
uses indicators such as employment rates, reinsertion into the
educational system, return abroad, and retrafficking as tools for its
caseload management by identifying more-effective mechanisms for victim
identification and referral.
[25] According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), randomized
control trials meet the highest standards of impact evaluation and
should be used whenever feasible. As defined by OMB's guidance, a
randomized controlled trial is "a study that measures an intervention's
effect by randomly assigning individuals or other units into an
intervention group, which receives the intervention, and into a control
group, which does not. At some point following intervention,
measurements are taken to establish the difference between the
intervention group and the control group." However, randomized
controlled trials are not suitable for every program and generally can
be employed only under special circumstances. See OMB, "What
Constitutes Strong Evidence of a Program's Effectiveness?"
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/2004_program_eval.pdf).
[26] A place-randomized trial is a study in which a number of places
are randomly assigned to two or more interventions to learn which
intervention works best.
[27] We could not determine the universe of projects currently being
implemented in these three countries because multiple U.S. agencies are
involved in international antitrafficking efforts and there is no one
central repository to identify all U.S.-funded projects.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
