Human Trafficking
Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad Gao ID: GAO-06-825 July 18, 2006Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which men, women, and children are bought, sold, and held against their will in involuntary servitude. In addition to the tremendous personal damage suffered by individual trafficking victims, this global crime has broad societal repercussions, such as fueling criminal networks and imposing public health costs. In 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to combat trafficking and reauthorized this act twice. This report reviews U.S. international antitrafficking efforts by examining (1) estimates of the extent of global trafficking, (2) the U.S. government's strategy for combating the problem abroad, and (3) the Department of State's process for evaluating foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts.
The U.S. government estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are trafficked across international borders annually. However, such estimates of global human trafficking are questionable. The accuracy of the estimates is in doubt because of methodological weaknesses, gaps in data, and numerical discrepancies. For example, the U.S. government's estimate was developed by one person who did not document all his work, so the estimate may not be replicable, casting doubt on its reliability. Moreover, country data are not available, reliable, or comparable. There is also a considerable discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated victims of human trafficking. The U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of trafficking related data that resides within government entities. While federal agencies have undertaken antitrafficking activities, the U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy for combating trafficking abroad or developed a way to gauge results and target its overall assistance. The U.S. government has established coordination mechanisms, but they do not include a systematic way for agencies to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to each other, identify needs, or leverage activities to achieve greater results. Further, the U.S. government has not established performance measures or conducted evaluations to gauge the overall impact of antitrafficking programs abroad, thus preventing the U.S. government from determining the effectiveness of its efforts or adjusting its assistance to better meet needs. The Department of State assesses foreign governments' compliance with minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons; but the explanations for ranking decisions in its annual Trafficking in Persons Report are incomplete, and the report is not used consistently to develop antitrafficking programs. It has increased global awareness, encouraged government action, and raised the risk of sanctions against governments who did not make significant efforts to comply with the standards. However, State does not comprehensively describe compliance with the standards, lessening the report's credibility and usefulness as a diplomatic tool. Further, incomplete country narratives reduce the report's utility as a guide to help focus U.S. government resources on antitrafficking programming priorities.
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-06-825, Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-825
entitled 'Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting
Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad' which was
released on August 14, 2006.
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 the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary and the Chairman,
Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives:
July 2006:
Human Trafficking:
Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S.
Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad:
GAO-06-825:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-825, a report to the Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary and the Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House
of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which men,
women, and children are bought, sold, and held against their will in
involuntary servitude. In addition to the tremendous personal damage
suffered by individual trafficking victims, this global crime has broad
societal repercussions, such as fueling criminal networks and imposing
public health costs. In 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (TVPA) to combat trafficking and reauthorized this act
twice. This report reviews U.S. international antitrafficking efforts
by examining (1) estimates of the extent of global trafficking, (2) the
U.S. government‘s strategy for combating the problem abroad, and (3)
the Department of State‘s process for evaluating foreign governments‘
antitrafficking efforts
What GAO Found:
The U.S. government estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are
trafficked across international borders annually. However, such
estimates of global human trafficking are questionable. The accuracy of
the estimates is in doubt because of methodological weaknesses, gaps in
data, and numerical discrepancies. For example, the U.S. government‘s
estimate was developed by one person who did not document all his work,
so the estimate may not be replicable, casting doubt on its
reliability. Moreover, country data are not available, reliable, or
comparable. There is also a considerable discrepancy between the
numbers of observed and estimated victims of human trafficking. The
U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for
estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of
trafficking related data that resides within government entities.
While federal agencies have undertaken antitrafficking activities, the
U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy for combating
trafficking abroad or developed a way to gauge results and target its
overall assistance. The U.S. government has established coordination
mechanisms, but they do not include a systematic way for agencies to
clearly delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to each other,
identify needs, or leverage activities to achieve greater results.
Further, the U.S. government has not established performance measures
or conducted evaluations to gauge the overall impact of antitrafficking
programs abroad, thus preventing the U.S. government from determining
the effectiveness of its efforts or adjusting its assistance to better
meet needs.
The Department of State assesses foreign governments‘ compliance with
minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons; but the
explanations for ranking decisions in its annual Trafficking in Persons
Report are incomplete, and the report is not used consistently to
develop antitrafficking programs. It has increased global awareness,
encouraged government action, and raised the risk of sanctions against
governments who did not make significant efforts to comply with the
standards. However, State does not comprehensively describe compliance
with the standards, lessening the report‘s credibility and usefulness
as a diplomatic tool. Further, incomplete country narratives reduce the
report‘s utility as a guide to help focus U.S. government resources on
antitrafficking programming priorities.
Figure: Principal U.S. Government Agencies with Responsibilities for
Antitrafficking Programs:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: U.S. Agencies listed in figure (data) and Corel (logos).
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of State (1) improve information on
trafficking, (2) develop and implement a strategy that clarifies
agencies‘ roles and responsibilities and establishes a way to gauge
results abroad, and (3) clearly document the rationale and support for
country rankings.
In their comments, the agencies primarily responsible for these
activities generally concurred with our recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-825].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Thomas Melito, 202-512-
9601, melitot@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Estimates of Global Human Trafficking Are Questionable, and U.S. Data
Collection Efforts Are Fragmented:
Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures Prevents U.S. Government from
Determining Overall Program Effectiveness Abroad:
Department of State's Annual Report Ranks Foreign Governments'
Antitrafficking Efforts but Has Limited Credibility and Does Not
Consistently Influence Antitrafficking Programs:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Methodologies Used by Four Organizations to Collect Data
on Human Trafficking:
Appendix III: Eight U.S. Government Entities' Data on Human
Trafficking:
Appendix IV: State's Process for Assessing Foreign Governments'
Compliance with U.S. Minimum Standards to Eliminate Human Trafficking:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Funding Obligated for International Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons, Fiscal Years 2001-2005:
Table 2: Victim Profiles in U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM
databases:
Table 3: Reasons that Limit the Quality of Trafficking Data:
Table 4: Four Organizations' Data Sources and Validation:
Table 5: Four Organizations' Methodologies, Key Assumptions and
Limitations:
Table 6: Data on Human Trafficking Maintained by U.S. Government
Entities:
Table 7: Minimum Standards and Criteria for the Elimination of Human
Trafficking:
Figures:
Figure 1: Principal U.S. Government Agencies with Responsibilities for
Antitrafficking Activities and Associated Coordination Entities:
Figure 2: Profile of 7,711 Trafficking Victims IOM Assisted between
1999 and 2005:
Figure 3: Tier Definitions:
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations for Antitrafficking Activities
by Tier Ranking:
Figure 5: Completeness of Country Narratives for Governments in Tier 2
Watch List and Tier 3:
Figure 6: Key Elements of the Trafficking in Persons Report Process:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
G/TIP: Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking
in Persons:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
ILO: International Labor Organization:
IOM: International Organization for Migration:
NGO: nongovernmental organization:
SPOG: Senior Policy Operating Group:
TVPA: Trafficking Victims Protection Act:
UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
USAID: United States Agency for International Development:
July 18, 2006:
The Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde:
Chairman:
Committee on International Relations:
House of Representatives:
Human trafficking is a worldwide form of exploitation in which men,
women, and children are bought, sold, and held against their will in
slave-like conditions. People are trafficked and forced to work in the
commercial sex trade, sweatshops, agricultural settings, domestic
service, and other types of servitude. In addition to the tremendous
personal damage suffered by individual trafficking victims, this global
crime has broad societal repercussions. It fuels criminal networks,
imposes public health costs, and erodes government authority. Since the
mid-1990s, the United States has played a leading role in putting human
trafficking on the international community's agenda. In 2000, Congress
enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) to combat
trafficking in persons and established the President's Interagency Task
Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Interagency Task
Force). Congress reauthorized this Act--in the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (TVPA 2003) and the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (TVPA 2005). This
legislation requires the Secretary of State to report to Congress
annually on foreign governments' compliance with minimum U.S. standards
for the elimination of trafficking. Since 2001, the U.S. government has
provided about $375 million[Footnote 1] in antitrafficking assistance
to foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations to help
eliminate human trafficking.
This review is part of a larger body of work that you
requested.[Footnote 2] To review the status of U.S. international
efforts to combat trafficking in persons, we examined (1) estimates of
the extent of global trafficking in persons, (2) the U.S. government's
strategy for combating trafficking in persons abroad, and (3) the
Department of State's (State) process for evaluating foreign
governments' antitrafficking efforts.
To address these objectives, we reviewed pertinent State, Justice,
Labor, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and U.S. Agency
for International Development planning, funding, and program documents
for international human trafficking. We discussed U.S. international
trafficking efforts with officials from these departments, along with
knowledgeable officials from international and nongovernmental
organizations. We conducted an extensive analysis of the global
trafficking databases developed and maintained by the U.S. government,
the International Organization for Migration, the International Labor
Organization, and the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).[Footnote
3] We also analyzed the country narratives in State's 2005 Trafficking
in Persons Report to determine how it assesses compliance with the
minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, as laid out in
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. We conducted our review
from September 2005 to May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The U.S. government estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons are
trafficked across international borders annually; however such
estimates of global human trafficking are questionable. The accuracy of
the estimates is in doubt because of methodological weaknesses, gaps in
data, and numerical discrepancies. For example, the U.S. government's
estimate was developed by one person who did not document all of his
work, so the estimate may not be replicable, casting doubt on its
reliability. Moreover, the quality of existing country level data
varies due to limited availability, reliability, and comparability.
There is also a considerable discrepancy between the numbers of
observed and estimated victims of human trafficking. The U.S.
government has not yet established an effective mechanism for
estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of
trafficking related data that resides within various government
agencies.
More than 5 years after the passage of the landmark antitrafficking
law, the U.S. government has not developed a coordinated strategy to
combat trafficking in persons abroad, as called for in a presidential
directive, or evaluated its programs to determine whether projects are
achieving the desired outcomes. Task forces and other coordinating
mechanisms have been established to coordinate U.S. government efforts
abroad; the focus of these mechanisms is to avoid duplication of effort
and ensure compliance with U.S. government policy. However, the process
does not include a systematic approach for agencies to clearly
delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to each other,
identify needs, and target ways to complement each others' activities
to achieve greater results. In addition, the Interagency Task Force has
not established performance measures or conducted evaluations to
measure the impact of the U.S. government's antitrafficking programs
abroad. The lack of a coordinated strategy and evaluation plan prevents
the U.S. government from determining the effectiveness of its efforts
to combat human trafficking abroad or to adjust its assistance to
better meet needs.
The Department of State annually assesses foreign governments'
compliance with U.S. minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in
persons, but State's explanations for its ranking decisions are
incomplete, and the report is not used consistently to develop
governmentwide antitrafficking programs. Each year since 2001, State
has issued the Trafficking in Persons Report that ranks foreign
governments into one of three categories, or tiers, depending on their
efforts to comply with the minimum standards and criteria established
in U.S. legislation. This report has increased global awareness of
human trafficking, encouraged action by governments who failed to
comply with the minimum standards, and raised the risk of sanctions
against governments who did not make significant efforts to comply with
these standards. However, some of the minimum standards are subjective,
and the report does not comprehensively explain how they were applied,
lessening the report's credibility and hampering its usefulness as a
diplomatic tool. For example, country narratives for most countries in
the top category (tier 1) failed to clearly explain compliance with the
second minimum standard, regarding prescribed penalties for sex
trafficking crimes, established in the TVPA. The report is also
intended to serve as a guide to antitrafficking programming priorities
overseas, but agencies do not systematically link programs with
reported deficiencies.
To improve U.S. efforts to combat human trafficking abroad, we are
making several recommendations. To improve information on global
trafficking that could be used to effectively target resources and
programs, we are recommending that the Chair of the President's
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
work closely with relevant agencies in researching a mechanism to
develop a reliable global trafficking estimate. We are also
recommending that the Chair develop and implement a strategy that would
delineate agency roles and responsibilities and mechanisms for
integrating activities; and determine priorities, measurable goals,
time frames, performance measures, and a methodology to gauge results.
Finally, to improve the credibility of State's annual report on
trafficking in persons, we are recommending that the Secretary of State
clearly document the rationale and support for tier rankings and
improve the report's usefulness for antitrafficking programming.
In commenting on a draft of this report, State generally agreed with
our recommendations. In response to agencies' technical comments, we
clarified our second recommendation to state that agencies' roles and
responsibilities should be delineated in relation to each other,
consistent with our report findings. The U.S. government agency that
prepares the trafficking estimate fundamentally concurs with our
characterization of the U.S. global estimate of trafficking flows.
Background:
Human trafficking occurs worldwide and often involves transnational
criminal organizations, violations of labor and immigration codes, and
government corruption. Although their circumstances vary, fraud, force,
or coercion typically distinguishes trafficking victims from people who
are smuggled. Moreover, most trafficking cases follow the same pattern:
people are abducted or recruited in the country of origin, transferred
through transit regions, and then exploited in the destination
country.[Footnote 4] People may also be trafficked internally, that is,
within the borders of their own country. Trafficking victims include
agricultural workers who are brought into the United States, held in
crowded unsanitary conditions, threatened with violence if they attempt
to leave, and kept under constant surveillance; child camel jockeys in
Dubai who are starved to keep their weight down; Indonesian women who
may be drawn to a domestic service job in another country, are not paid
for their work and are without the resources to return home; child
victims of commercial sexual exploitation in Thailand; and child
soldiers in Uganda.
During the 1990s, the U.S. government began drawing attention to the
problem of human trafficking before various international forums and
gatherings. In 1998, a presidential memorandum[Footnote 5] called on
U.S. government agencies to combat the problem through prevention of
trafficking, victim assistance and protection, and enforcement. This
approach came to be known as "the three p's"--prevention, protection,
and prosecution.
In 2000, Congress enacted TVPA[Footnote 6] and reauthorized and amended
the act twice.[Footnote 7] The act defines victims of severe forms of
trafficking as those persons subject to (1) sex trafficking in which a
commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which
the person induced to perform such acts is under age 18 or (2) the
recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a
person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or
coercion, for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude,
peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. The TVPA does not specify movement
across international boundaries as a condition of trafficking; it does
not require the transportation of victims from one locale to another.
Under the TVPA, an alien, who is identified as a victim of a severe
form of trafficking in the United States and meets additional
conditions, is eligible for special benefits and services.
The TVPA, as amended, provides a framework for current U.S.
antitrafficking efforts. It addresses the prevention of trafficking,
protection and assistance for victims of trafficking, and the
prosecution and punishment of traffickers. The TVPA also laid out
minimum standards for eliminating trafficking to be used in the
Secretary of State's annual assessment of foreign governments'
antitrafficking efforts. It authorized U.S. foreign assistance for
efforts designed to meet these standards and established sanctions--
withholding nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related assistance--that could be
applied against governments of countries not in compliance with the
standards and not making significant efforts to bring themselves into
compliance.[Footnote 8]
Responsibility for implementing U.S. government antitrafficking efforts
domestically and abroad is shared by the Departments of State, Justice,
Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Each agency
addresses one or more of the three prongs of the U.S. antitrafficking
approach. Some agencies have more responsibility for implementing
international trafficking efforts than others. Figure 1 shows agencies
and task forces with responsibilities for antitrafficking efforts.
Figure 1: Principal U.S. Government Agencies with Responsibilities for
Antitrafficking Activities and Associated Coordination Entities:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: Departments of Health and Human services, Homeland Security,
Justice, Labor, and State, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (data); and Corel (logos).
Note: The TVPA 2000, 2003, and 2005 establish that the members of the
President's Interagency Task Force and the Senior Policy Operating
Group include the agencies listed above, as well as the Director of
National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and such other
officials as may be designated by the President.
[End of figure]
The government has also created several coordinating mechanisms for
these antitrafficking efforts, as shown in figure 1. The TVPA directed
the President to establish the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons, comprised of various agency heads and
chaired by the Secretary of State, to coordinate the implementation of
the act, among other activities. Furthermore, the TVPA authorized the
Secretary of State to create the Department of State's Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking Office) to
provide assistance to the task force. Subsequently, TVPA 2003
established the Senior Policy Operating Group, which addresses
interagency policy, program, and planning issues regarding TVPA
implementation. The TVPA 2003 directed the Director of the Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons to serve as chair of the
group. In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004,[Footnote 9] passed in December 2004, established the Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center to be jointly run by the Departments
of State, Justice and DHS. This center houses several agency data
systems to collect and disseminate information to build a comprehensive
picture of certain transnational issues, including, among other things,
human trafficking.
Since 2001, the U.S. government has obligated approximately $375
million for international projects to combat trafficking in persons.
For example, in fiscal year 2005, the U.S. government supported more
than 265 international antitrafficking programs in about 100 countries.
State, Labor, and USAID are the three largest providers of
international assistance to target trafficking (see table 1).
Table 1: Funding Obligated for International Activities to Combat
Trafficking in Persons, Fiscal Years 2001-2005:
Dollars in millions.
Department of State;
FY 2001: $11.47;
FY 2002: $23.01;
FY 2003: $28.13;
FY 2004: $33.36;
FY 2005: $34.41;
Total FY 2001-2005: $130.38.
U.S. Agency for International Development;
FY 2001: 6.74;
FY 2002: 10.72;
FY 2003: 15.42;
FY 2004: 27.59;
FY 2005: 21.34;
Total FY 2001- 2005: 81.81.
Department of Labor[A];
FY 2001: 20.65;
FY 2002: 32.93;
FY 2003: 48.31;
FY 2004: 18.65;
FY 2005: 38.40;
Total FY 2001-2005: 158.94[A].
Department of Justice[B];
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0.20[B];
FY 2005: 0[B];
Total FY 2001-2005: 0.20[B].
Department of Health and Human Services;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0;
FY 2005: 2.20;
Total FY 2001-2005: 2.20.
Department of Homeland Security[C];
FY 2001: N/A;
FY 2002: 0;
FY 2003: 0;
FY 2004: 0.20;
FY 2005: 0;
Total FY 2001-2005: 0.20.
Total;
FY 2001: $38.86;
FY 2002: $66.66;
FY 2003: $91.86;
FY 2004: $80.00;
FY 2005: $96.35;
Total FY 2001-2005: $373.73.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by State, Labor, Justice, HHS,
DHS, and USAID.
Note: The information represents the most current data provided
respectively by these agencies. The annual reporting of these data may
vary by agency based on when the funds were considered obligated.
[A] The Department of Labor was unable to break out funding amounts
that address trafficking. Totals include obligations for activities
that either have trafficking as a central focus, one component of a
larger project linked to trafficking, or as an issue within the overall
context of the project.
[B] In addition to the $200,000 in Department of Justice funding, State
provided additional funding to the department's Office of Overseas
Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training and International
Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program to conduct training
overseas. In fiscal year 2004, State provided a total of $6.5 million
to the two programs. In fiscal year 2005, it provided $2.08 million.
These amounts are reflected in the State total in table 1. Department
of Justice officials stated additional funds used to carry out
antitrafficking activities, including law enforcement activities, come
from the regular budget and cannot be broken out.
[C] Agency officials stated additional funds used to carry out
antitrafficking activities, including law enforcement activities, come
from the regular budget and cannot be broken out. The $200,000 reported
in 2004 was from State's Presidential Initiative funding for overseas
project initiation.
[End of table]
During an address to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2003, the
President declared trafficking in persons a humanitarian crisis and
announced that the U.S. government was committing $50 million to
support organizations active in combating sex trafficking, sex tourism,
and the rescue of women and children. In 2004, eight priority countries
for the initiative were identified--Brazil, Cambodia, India, Indonesia,
Mexico, Moldova, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania. The initiative was
centered on developing the capacity of each country to rescue women and
children, to provide emergency shelters, medical treatment,
rehabilitation services, vocational training, and reintegration
services, and to conduct law enforcement investigations and
prosecutions.
Estimates of Global Human Trafficking Are Questionable, and U.S. Data
Collection Efforts Are Fragmented:
Existing estimates of the scale of trafficking at the global level are
questionable, and improvements in data collection have not yet been
implemented. The accuracy of the estimates is in doubt because of
methodological weaknesses, gaps in data and numerical discrepancies.
For example, the U.S. government's estimate was developed by one person
who did not document all of his work, so the estimate may not be
replicable, casting doubt on its reliability. Moreover, country data
are generally not available, reliable or comparable. There is also a
considerable discrepancy between the numbers of observed and estimated
victims of human trafficking. The U.S. government has not yet
established an effective mechanism for estimating the number of victims
or for conducting ongoing analysis of trafficking related data that
resides within various government agencies. While trafficking data
collection in the United States is fragmented, the database created by
the International Organization for Migration (IOM) provides a useful
systematic profile of victims and traffickers across countries.
Accuracy of Estimates in Doubt Because of Methodological Weaknesses,
Gaps in Data, and Numerical Discrepancies:
The U.S. government and three international organizations gather data
on human trafficking, but methodological weaknesses affect the accuracy
of their information. Efforts to develop accurate trafficking estimates
are further frustrated by the lack of country level data. Finally,
there is a considerable discrepancy between the numbers of observed and
estimated victims of human trafficking.
Methodological Weaknesses Cast Doubt on U.S. and International
Estimates:
The U.S. government and three international organizations have gathered
data on global human trafficking. However, these organizations face
methodological weaknesses and institutional constraints that cast doubt
on the accuracy of the collected data.
The four organizations with databases on global trafficking in persons
are the U.S. government, International Labor Organization (ILO),
IOM,[Footnote 10] and UNODC. The U.S. government and ILO estimate the
number of victims worldwide, IOM collects data on victims it assists in
the countries where it has a presence, and UNODC traces the major
international trafficking routes of the victims. The databases provide
information on different aspects of human trafficking since each
organization analyzes the problem based on its own mandate. For
example, IOM looks at trafficking from a migration and rights point of
view[Footnote 11] and ILO from the point of view of forced labor.
Despite the fact that the databases use different methodologies for
data collection and analysis and have various limitations, some common
themes emerge. For example, the largest percentage of estimated victims
is trafficked for sexual exploitation. In addition, women constitute
the majority of estimated victims. However, the estimated percentage of
victims that are children ranges from 13 to 50 percent. Table 2
describes the victim profiles that emerge from the data.
Table 2: Victim Profiles in U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM
databases:
Main focus;
U.S. government: Global estimate of victims;
ILO[A]: Global estimate of victims;
UNODC[B]: Country and regional patterns of international trafficking;
IOM[C]: Actual victims assisted by IOM in 26 countries.
Number of victims;
U.S. government: 600,000 to 800,000 people trafficked across borders in
2003[D] (est.);
ILO[A]: At least 2.45 million people trafficked internationally and
internally during 1995 to 2004 (est.);
UNODC[B]: Not available;
IOM[C]: 7,711 victims assisted during 1999 to 2005.
Type of exploitation: Commercial sex.
U.S. government: 66%;
ILO[A]: 43%;
UNODC[B]: 87%[E];
IOM[C]: 81%.
Type of exploitation: Economic or forced labor;
U.S. government: 34%;
ILO[A]: 32%;
UNODC[B]: 28%;
IOM[C]: 14%.
Type of exploitation: Mixed and other;
U.S. government: [Empty];
ILO[A]: 25%;
UNODC[B]: [Empty];
IOM[C]: 5%.
Gender and age of victims;
U.S. government: 80% female[F]; 50% minors;
ILO[A]: 80% female[G]; 40% minors;
UNODC[B]: 77% female[H]; 9% male; 33% children;
IOM[C]: 83% female; 15% male; 2% not identified; 13% minors.
Definition of trafficking used;
U.S. government: TVPA 2000;
ILO[A]: U.N. Protocol;
UNODC[B]: U.N. Protocol;
IOM[C]: U.N. Protocol.
Criteria for data collection;
U.S. government: Transnational trafficking;
ILO[A]: Internal and transnational trafficking;
UNODC[B]: Transnational trafficking;
IOM[C]: Internal and transnational trafficking.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM data.
[A] For a detailed discussion, see Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle
and Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World,
ILO, (Geneva: April 2005).
[B] For a detailed discussion, see UNODC, Trafficking in Persons Global
Patterns, (Vienna: April 2006).
[C] For a detailed discussion, see IOM, Data and Research on Human
Trafficking: A Global Survey, (Geneva: 2005).
[D] The estimate was repeated in the 2005 and 2006 Trafficking in
Persons Reports.
[E] The numbers refer to the percentage of different sources (i.e.,
source institutions) that have reported in any of their publications a
trafficking route, in which women, men and children have been
trafficked for sexual exploitation or forced labor. The sum of the
percentages is greater than 100 because one source can indicate more
than one victim profile or form of exploitation.
[F] Women and girls.
[G] Women and girls, where the gender/age information is available.
[H] Women only.
[End of table]
U.S. Data:
Methodological weaknesses and limitations cast doubt on the U.S.
estimate of global trafficking flows. We identified several important
limitations:
* Estimate not entirely replicable. The U.S. government agency that
prepares the trafficking estimate is part of the intelligence
community, which makes its estimation methodology opaque and
inaccessible. During a trafficking workshop in November 2005, the
government agency provided a one-page overview of its methodology,
which allowed for only a very limited peer review by the workshop
participants. In addition, the U.S. government's methodology involves
interpreting, classifying, and analyzing data, which was performed by
one person who did not document all of his work. Thus the estimate may
not be replicable, which raises doubts about its reliability.
* Estimate based on unreliable estimates of others. The biggest
methodological challenge in calculating an accurate number of global
trafficking victims is how to transition from reported to unreported
victims. The U.S. government does not directly estimate the number of
unreported victims but relies on the estimates of others, adjusting
them through a complex statistical process. It essentially averages the
various aggregate estimates of reported and unreported trafficking
victims published by NGOs, governments, and international
organizations, estimates that themselves are not reliable or comparable
due to different definitions, methodologies, data sources, and data
validation procedures. Moreover, the methodologies used to develop
these estimates are generally not published and available for
professional scrutiny.[Footnote 12]
* Internal trafficking data not included. The U.S. government does not
collect data on internal trafficking, which could be a significant
problem in countries such as India, where forced labor is reportedly
widespread. According to the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report, many
nations may be overlooking internal trafficking or forms of labor
trafficking in their national legislations. In particular, what is
often absent is involuntary servitude, a form of severe trafficking.
The report also noted that the TVPA specifically includes involuntary
servitude in the U.S. definition of severe forms of trafficking.
Nonetheless, the U.S. government estimate does not account for it,
because it only collects data on offenses that cross national borders.
* Estimate not suitable for analysis over time. The U.S. government
methodology provides an estimate of trafficking flows for a 1-year
period and cannot be used to analyze trafficking over time to determine
whether it is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Therefore,
the estimate cannot help in targeting resources and evaluating program
effectiveness.
International Data:
Methodological weaknesses also raise questions about the accuracy of
trafficking information from international organizations. For example,
UNODC's methodology attempts to identify global trafficking flows
across international borders. It tracks and totals the number of
different source institutions that have reported a country having a
trafficking incident. However, whether the trafficking incident
involved 5 or 500 victims is irrelevant for UNODC's methodology. In
addition, by classifying countries in five categories based on the
frequency of reporting, UNODC might rank a country very high as, say, a
destination country, due to the country's heightened public awareness,
transparency and recognition of trafficking as a serious crime.
Alternatively, ILO's methodology provides a global estimate of
trafficking victims. However, it attempts to overcome the gap between
reported and unreported victims using an extrapolation that is based on
assumptions and observations that have not been rigorously tested and
validated. Moreover, global databases are based on data sources drawn
from reports from a limited number of countries or restricted
geographically to specific countries. For example, IOM's data only come
from countries where IOM has a presence, which are primarily countries
of origin, and the organization is constrained by issues related to the
confidentiality of victim assistance. Finally, although the three
organizations are trying to collaborate in the area of data collection
and research, they are having difficulty in mobilizing the necessary
resources for their efforts. Therefore, this fragmentary approach
prevents the development of a comprehensive and accurate view of global
trafficking.
(See app. II for additional information about the different
methodologies, analytical assumptions, data validation, and data
sources used by the international organizations and the U.S.
government.)
Reliable and Comparable Country Data Do Not Exist:
The quality of existing country level data varies due to limited
availability, reliability, and comparability. Table 3 summarizes the
main limitations of trafficking data, identified in our review of
literature on human trafficking.
Table 3: Reasons that Limit the Quality of Trafficking Data:
Availability:
1. Trafficking is an illegal activity and victims are afraid to seek
help from the relevant authorities;
2. Few countries collect data on actual victims on a systematic basis;
3. Data collection is focused on women and children trafficked for
sexual exploitation, and other forms of trafficking are likely to be
underreported;
Reliability:
1. Capacity for data collection and analysis in countries of origin is
often inadequate;
2. Trafficking convictions in countries of destination are based on
victim testimony;
3. Estimates of trafficking are extrapolated from samples of reported
victims, which may not be random and thus representative of all
trafficking victims;
Comparability:
1. Countries and organizations define trafficking differently;
2. Official statistics do not make clear distinctions among
trafficking, smuggling, and illegal migration;
3. Data are often program specific and focus on characteristics of
victims pertinent to specific agencies.
Source: GAO analysis of reports, articles and presentations from
international organizations, the U.S. government and academia.
[End of table]
The availability of data is limited by several factors. Trafficking
victims are a hidden population because trafficking is a clandestine
activity, similar to illegal migration and labor exploitation. This
limits the amount of data available on victims and makes it difficult
to estimate the number of unreported victims. Trafficking victims are
often in a precarious position and may be unwilling or unable to report
to, or seek help from, relevant authorities. Moreover, HHS reported
that victims live daily with inhumane treatment, physical and mental
abuse, and threats to themselves or their families back home. Victims
of human trafficking may fear or distrust the government and police
because they are afraid of being deported or because they come from
countries where law enforcement is corrupt and feared. In such
circumstances, reporting to the police or seeking help elsewhere
requires courage and knowledge of local conditions, which the victims
simply might not have.
In addition, some governments give low priority to human trafficking
violations and do not systematically collect data on victims. In most
countries where trafficking data are gathered, women and children are
seen as victims of trafficking, and men are predominantly seen as
migrant workers, reflecting a gender bias in existing information. Men
are also perceived as victims of labor exploitation that may not be
seen as a crime but rather as an issue for trade unions and labor
regulators. Thus, data collection and applied research often miss the
broader dimensions of trafficking for labor exploitation. For example,
the demand for cheap labor, domestic service, slavery, and child labor
have not been sufficiently investigated as factors affecting the scale
of human trafficking.
The reliability of existing data is also questionable. In developing
countries, which are usually countries of origin, capacity for data
collection and analysis is often inadequate. In countries of
destination, human trafficking convictions are often based on victim
testimony. Moreover, estimates of trafficking are extrapolated from
samples of reported cases, which are not random. Therefore, it is
difficult to determine how representative those cases are of the
general population of all human trafficking victims and what biases
have been introduced.
Data quality is further constrained by limited data comparability.
Countries and organizations define trafficking differently. A practice
that is considered trafficking in one country may be considered
culturally and historically acceptable in another country. For example,
in West African countries, people, in particular children, commonly
move within and across borders in search of work and are placed in
homes as domestic servants or on farms and plantations as laborers. Due
to economic deprivation and an abundant supply of children from poor
families, a child may be sold by his or her parents based on promises
for job training and good education or may be placed with a creditor as
reimbursement.
The incompatibility of definitions for data collection is exacerbated
by the intermingling of trafficking, smuggling, and illegal migration
in official statistics. Countries have used different definitions
regarding the scope and means of trafficking; the activities involved,
such as recruitment, harboring, transportation and receipt of victims;
the purpose; the need for movement across borders; and the consent of
victims. For example, there are discrepancies in the collection of data
on sex trafficking. Under the TVPA, participation of children under the
age of 18 in commercial sex is a severe form of trafficking. However,
some countries define children as people under the age of 16 and,
according to U.S. government officials, this difference has
implications for how countries collect data on children engaged in
commercial sex.
Finally, data are often program and institution specific and focus on
the needs of individual agencies. Estimates may be developed for the
purpose of advocacy. For example, some NGOs record all victims based on
the first contact made with them regardless of whether they
subsequently meet the criteria for receiving assistance such as legal
counsel, shelter, financial support, or support during a trial, while
others record only those who receive assistance. Data are also
collected for operational purposes within criminal justice systems, and
individual authorities use their own definitions and classifications.
Significant Difference Exists between Numbers of Estimated and Observed
Victims:
There is significant discrepancy between the number of estimated
victims and the number of observed victims, which include officially
reported, certified, registered and assisted victims. For example, the
U.S. government estimated that the number of people trafficked into the
United States ranged from 14,500 to 17,500 in 2003.[Footnote 13]
Despite concerted U.S. government efforts to locate and protect
victims, the government certified fewer than 900 victims in the United
States during the 4 ½ years between March 2001 and September
2005.[Footnote 14] The June 2006 Attorney General's Annual Report to
Congress on U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons
for Fiscal Year 2005 indicates that the 14,500 to 17,500 figure may be
overstated because it was an early attempt to quantify a hidden
problem. The number of certified victims may not reflect the total
number of victims identified. For example, some alien victims need not
seek certification because they can remain in the United States through
family connections. The Justice Department indicates that further
research is under way to determine a more accurate figure based on more
advanced methodologies and a more complete understanding of the nature
of trafficking. Similarly, the U.S. government estimated that a total
of 600,000 to 800,000 people were trafficked across transnational
borders worldwide annually. Yet, since 1999, fewer than 8,000 victims
in 26 countries have received IOM assistance.
Organizations may also publish estimates that incorrectly characterize
the data reported by others. For example,[Footnote 15] in a 2001 report
a Cambodian nongovernmental organization states that there were 80,000
to 100,000 trafficked women and children nationwide. However, this
statement is based on a report which discusses 80,000 to 100,000 sex
workers in the country, who may or may not be trafficking victims.
Moreover, the latter report uses two other sources that did not
corroborate this estimate.
Several factors could explain the differences between the numbers of
observed and estimated victims, but it is unclear the extent to which
any single factor accounts for the differences. For example, the 2005
Trafficking in Persons Report cited cases in which victims reported by
law enforcement were deported before they reached an assistance agency.
In addition, agencies may not make sufficient efforts in identifying
and helping victims or may have constraints imposed by certain
assistance requirements. Victims assisted by IOM missions are those
willing to go back to their country of origin. However, if there are
other opportunities available in the country of destination, such as
receiving a residence permit, victims may not be willing to accept IOM
assistance. In the United States, one requirement of receiving official
certification is that victims of human trafficking must be willing to
assist with the investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases.
According to an HHS official, this requirement may work to limit the
number of recorded victims. Given the weaknesses in data and methods,
it also cannot be dismissed that the estimates may overstate the
magnitude of human trafficking.
Trafficking Data Collection in the United States Is Fragmented While
IOM's Is Systematic:
The U.S. government has not yet established an effective mechanism for
estimating the number of victims or for conducting ongoing analysis of
trafficking related data that resides within various government
agencies. The TVPA 2005, passed in January 2006, called on the
President, through various agencies, to conduct research into the
development of an effective mechanism for quantifying the number of
victims of trafficking on a national, regional, and international
basis. Since 2005, the U.S. government has funded a project to develop
a transparent methodology for estimating the number of men, women, and
children trafficked into the United States for purposes of sex or labor
trafficking. To date, the modeling has been limited to 10 countries of
origin--Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and Cuba--and one arrival point in the United
States--the southwest border. The firm developing this methodology is
in the early stages of this effort and plans to continue to refine and
test its methodology. Thus, it is too early to assess this methodology.
The U.S. government also recently funded an outside contractor to
improve future global trafficking estimates. To date, the U.S.
government has funded few projects to improve estimates of trafficking
on a regional or international basis.
In addition, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 established the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center[Footnote
16] to serve, among other responsibilities, as a clearinghouse for all
relevant information and to convert it into tactical, operational, and
strategic intelligence to combat trafficking in persons. The Human
Smuggling and Trafficking Center collects trafficking information from
U.S government agencies and sends this information to other agencies
that have an interest in it for law enforcement purposes. Center
officials stated that they receive and collate trafficking information
from federal government agencies. However, officials stated that they
do not systematically analyze the trafficking information they receive
and lack the human and financial resources to do so. In addition, we
identified eight entities within the federal government that possess
some information related to domestic and international trafficking. The
Justice Department alone has four different offices that possess
domestic trafficking information. None of the federal agencies
systematically shares their international data with the others, and no
agency analyzes the existing data to help inform international program
and resource allocation decisions. (See app. III for information on the
type of trafficking data available within agencies.)
Furthermore, based upon our analysis of agency data sets, we found that
federal agencies do not have data collection programs that could share
information or include common data fields. As a result, it is difficult
to use existing agency trafficking data to compile a profile of
trafficking victims. In previous work, we have reported that it is good
practice for agencies to establish compatible policies, procedures,
standards, and data systems to enable them to operate across agency
boundaries.[Footnote 17] Although some information exists, agencies
were unable to provide an account of the age, gender, type of
exploitation suffered, and origin and destination of trafficking
victims into the United States. Moreover, some agencies with law
enforcement missions were generally unwilling to share demographic
trafficking data with us and would release statistics for law
enforcement purposes only. The U.S. National Central Bureau was able to
extract limited profile information from its case management system.
While the information on trafficking victims collected by U.S. agencies
is fragmented, the database created by IOM allows for the development
of a useful, in-depth profile of traffickers and their victims across
26 countries. Although IOM's data are limited to countries where IOM
provides direct assistance to trafficking victims, has a short history
of about 7 years, and may not be easily generalizable, it is the only
one of the four databases that contains data directly obtained from
victims. Drawing from more than 7,000 cases, it includes information
about the victims' socioeconomic profile, movement, exploitation,
abuse, and duration of trafficking. Moreover, the database tracks
victims from the time they first requested IOM assistance, through
their receipt of assistance, to their subsequent return home.
Importantly, it also tracks whether victims were subsequently
retrafficked. These factors provide information that could assist U.S.
efforts to compile better data on trafficking victims.
As shown in figure 2, the victims IOM assisted often were enticed by
traffickers' promise of a job, most believed they would be working in
various legitimate professions, and were subjected to physical
violence.
Figure 2: Profile of 7,711 Trafficking Victims IOM Assisted between
1999 and 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of IOM data.
Note: All estimates are a result of GAO analysis of IOM data and are
based on cases with available data.
[A] IOM's policy is to use the term "prostitute" rather than "sex
worker" although the latter is used in their database.
[End of figure]
In addition, based on cases with available data on the duration of the
trafficking episode, the average duration of stay in the destination
country before seeking help from IOM is more than 2 years. Most of the
sexual exploitation victims worked 7 days a week and retained a small
fraction of their earnings. Moreover, about 54 percent of the victims
paid a debt to the recruiter, transporter and/or other exploiters, and
about 52 percent knew they were sold to other traffickers at some stage
of the trafficking process.
The database also contains information about the recruiters' and
traffickers' networks, nationality, and relationship to victims. It
thus provides insights into the traffickers and the mechanisms
traffickers used to identify and manipulate their victims. For example,
in 77 percent of the cases, contact with the recruiter was initiated
based on a personal relationship. Moreover, the correlation between the
nationality of the recruiter and that of the victim was very high
(0.92). Trafficking networks may have a complex organization, with the
recruiter being only one part of the whole system. The organization may
involve investors, transporters, corrupt public officials, informers,
guides, debt collectors, and money launderers. The extent of
information on victims and traffickers in the database improves the
overall understanding of the broader dimensions of trafficking.
Lack of Strategy and Performance Measures Prevents U.S. Government from
Determining Overall Program Effectiveness Abroad:
While federal agencies have undertaken activities to combat trafficking
in persons, the U.S. government has not developed a coordinated
strategy to combat human trafficking abroad, as called for in a
presidential directive. The U.S. government has established an
interagency task force and working group on human trafficking, which
have focused on complying with U.S. policy on prostitution and avoiding
duplication of effort, but they have not focused on developing and
implementing a systematic way for agencies to clearly delineate roles
and responsibilities in relation to each other, and identify targets of
greatest need and leverage overseas activities to achieve greater
results. In addition, governmentwide task forces have not developed
measurable goals and associated indicators to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of efforts to combat trafficking abroad or outlined an
evaluation plan to gauge results, making the U.S. government unable to
determine the effectiveness of its efforts abroad or to adjust its
assistance to better meet needs.
U.S. Government Has No Overall Strategic Framework to Combat Human
Trafficking Abroad:
Although the U.S. government established an interagency task force and
working group in 2002 to coordinate U.S. agencies' antitrafficking
activities,[Footnote 18] as required by legislation, it has not
developed a coordinated strategy to combat trafficking in persons
abroad, as called for by a presidential directive.[Footnote 19] The
directive further stated that strong coordination among agencies
working on domestic and foreign policy is crucial and that departments
and agencies shall coordinate U.S. foreign assistance programs to
combat trafficking in persons. In addition, our previous work on issues
that are national in scope and cut across agency jurisdictions has
shown that a strategic framework can be useful in guiding agency
resource and policy decisions.[Footnote 20] Furthermore, our previous
work has shown that lack of a coordinated strategy creates the risk of
overlap and fragmentation that may result in wasting scarce funds and
limiting program effectiveness.[Footnote 21]
Despite the presidential directive that requires the Senior Policy
Operating Group (the Group) to develop a coordinated strategy to combat
human trafficking, agency officials acknowledged that there is no
coordinated government strategy for efforts abroad. One senior agency
official stated that her agency uses the three-pronged approach of
prevention, protection, and prosecution as guidance. However, officials
agreed that a strategic plan could help improve understanding and
coordination among agencies. In addition, of the six government
agencies that conduct antitrafficking programs abroad, only two--
State's Trafficking Office and USAID--provided us with strategy-type
documents that specifically addressed trafficking abroad and included a
majority of the characteristics that we have identified in previous
work as necessary to implement a national strategy. Both agencies'
documents, at least partially, address the six characteristics we
identified. However, neither agency's documents clarified roles in
relation to other agencies or established clear and strategic
performance measures to gauge results and evaluate effectiveness.
Coordination Efforts Focused on Avoiding Duplication Abroad, Not on
Leveraging Resources to Maximize Impact:
As required by TVPA 2003, the U.S. government has established the Group
to coordinate the activities of federal agencies regarding policies
involving international human trafficking; but, although the
coordination efforts have focused on compliance with U.S. policy on
prostitution and avoiding duplication of effort, the efforts do not
include a focus on developing and implementing a systematic way for
agencies to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities in relation to
each other and to identify targets of greatest need and leverage
activities to achieve greater results. The presidential directive calls
on agencies to work together through the Group to address coordination,
sharing of information, and marshalling of law enforcement resources.
According to participating agency officials, the Group--through the
work of its various subcommittees--served as a forum for agency
officials to discuss trafficking policy and programs. The Group also
instituted a grants funding notification system that requires agencies
to notify members about each antitrafficking grant program that an
agency is considering awarding. According to the Group's guidance,
agencies can offer comments on potential duplication, partnership
opportunities, and whether a proposed project or grantees comply with
the U.S. government policy on prostitution.[Footnote 22] Information
provided to the Group for notification includes the name of the
recipient, location, short description of the project, and the proposed
amount. Members can comment on a grant, but they do not provide
approval; the awarding agency makes the final decision about whether to
award the grant. According to agency officials, the formal notification
process takes place after the awarding agency has held its own grants
panel and has chosen its final grants, making it too late for other
agencies' comments to have a significant impact on the grant.
According to officials knowledgeable with the Group's actions, it has
not developed or implemented a systematic way for agencies to identify
priorities and target efforts abroad to complement each others'
activities to achieve greater results than if the agencies were acting
alone.[Footnote 23] The presidential directive required agencies to
submit plans to implement the provisions in the directive. Agencies
submitted these plans. Our review of these plans found that, for the
most part, they provide information summarizing ongoing activities, but
officials from several agencies were unable to explain if, or to what
extent, they used them to target resources and coordinate activities.
One Trafficking Office official stated that the office never used its
implementation plan; however, the official further stated that the
office is in the process of updating it to make it more applicable.
The U.S. Government Does Not Have a Plan to Evaluate Its Overall
Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad:
Despite the mandate to evaluate progress, the Interagency Task Force
has not developed a plan to evaluate overall U.S. government efforts to
combat trafficking abroad. In TVPA 2000, Congress called upon the
Interagency Task Force to measure and evaluate the progress of the
United States and other countries in preventing trafficking, protecting
and providing assistance to victims, and prosecuting traffickers.
However, the Task Force has not developed an evaluation plan or
established governmentwide performance measures against which the U.S.
government can evaluate the overall impact of its international
antitrafficking efforts.[Footnote 24] In previous work, we have
reported that monitoring and evaluating efforts can help key decision
makers within agencies, as well as clients and stakeholders, identify
areas for improvement.[Footnote 25] Further, in its 2005 annual
assessment of U.S. government activities to combat human trafficking,
the Department of Justice recommended that the U.S. government begin
measuring the impact of its antitrafficking activities. Although the
project-level documentation that we reviewed from agencies, such as
USAID and the Department of Labor, included measures to track
activities on specific projects, officials stated that USAID's agency-
level aggregate indicators are intended as a way of communicating
agency outputs, not as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of
programs. In addition, according to the 2005 State Department Inspector
General report, State's Trafficking Office needs to better identify
relevant, objective, and clear performance indicators to compare
progress in combating trafficking from year to year. Officials from
State's Trafficking Office recognized the need to establish mechanisms
to evaluate grant effectiveness. However, officials stated that the
office lacks the personnel to monitor and evaluate programs in the
field and that it relies on U.S. embassy personnel to assist in project
monitoring. In early 2006, the Trafficking Office adopted a monitoring
and evaluation tool to assist embassy personnel in monitoring its
antitrafficking programs, but it is too soon to assess its impact.
Our review of the Department of State documentation and discussions
with agency officials found little evidence of the impact of various
antitrafficking efforts. For example, the 2005 Trafficking in Persons
Report asserts that legalized or tolerated prostitution nearly always
increases the number of women and children trafficked into commercial
sex slavery, but does not cite any supporting evidence. However, apart
from a 2005 European Parliament sponsored study[Footnote 26] on the
link between national legislation on prostitution and the trafficking
of women and children, we found few studies that comprehensively
addressed this issue. In addition, the State Inspector General report
noted that some embassies and academics questioned the credentials of
the organizations and findings of the research that the Trafficking
Office funded. The Inspector General recommended that the Trafficking
Office submit research proposals and reports to a rigorous peer review
to improve oversight of research efforts. In addition, according to
agency officials in Washington, D.C. and in the field, there is little
or no evidence to indicate the extent to which different types of
efforts--such as prosecuting traffickers, abolishing prostitution,
increasing viable economic opportunities, or sheltering and
reintegrating victims--impact the level of trafficking or the extent to
which rescued victims are being retrafficked.
Department of State's Annual Report Ranks Foreign Governments'
Antitrafficking Efforts but Has Limited Credibility and Does Not
Consistently Influence Antitrafficking Programs:
As required by the TVPA, the Department of State issues an annual
report that analyzes and ranks foreign governments' compliance with
minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons. This report has
increased global awareness about trafficking in persons, encouraged
action by some governments who failed to comply with the minimum
standards, and raised the threat of sanctions against governments who
did not make significant efforts to comply with these standards. The
Department of State includes explanations of the rankings in the
report, though they are not required under the TVPA. However, the
report's explanations for these ranking decisions are incomplete, and
agencies do not consistently use the report to influence
antitrafficking programs. Information about whether a country has a
significant number of trafficking victims may be unavailable or
unreliable, making the justification for some countries' inclusion in
the report debatable. Moreover, in justifying the tier rankings for
these countries, State does not comprehensively describe foreign
governments' compliance with the standards, many of which are
subjective. This lessens the report's credibility and hampers its
usefulness as a diplomatic tool. In addition, incomplete country
narratives reduce the report's utility as a guide to help focus U.S.
government resources on antitrafficking programming priorities.
Department of State's Annual Report Assesses Foreign Governments'
Efforts to Eliminate Trafficking:
Each year since 2001, State has published the congressionally mandated
Trafficking in Persons Report, ranking countries into a category, or
tier, based on the Secretary of State's assessment of foreign
governments' compliance with four minimum standards for eliminating
human trafficking, as established in the TVPA. These standards reflect
the U.S. government's antitrafficking strategy of prosecuting
traffickers, protecting victims, and preventing trafficking. The first
three standards deal with countries' efforts to prohibit severe forms
of trafficking and prescribe penalties for trafficking crimes, while
the fourth standard relates to government efforts to eliminate
trafficking.[Footnote 27] The TVPA instructed the Secretary of State to
place countries that are origin, transit, or destination countries for
a significant number of victims of severe forms of trafficking in one
of three tiers. In 2003, State added a fourth category, the tier 2
watch list, consisting of tier 2 countries that require special
scrutiny in the coming year (see fig. 3). Governments of countries
placed in tier 3 may be subject to sanctions by the United States.
Figure 3: Tier Definitions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report.
[End of figure]
In addition to the rankings, each Trafficking in Persons Report
contains country narratives intended to provide the basis for each
country's tier placement. Although the narratives are not required by
the TVPA, they state the scope and nature of the trafficking problem,
explain the reasons for the country's inclusion in the report, and
describe the government's efforts to combat trafficking and comply with
the minimum standards contained in U.S. legislation. For countries
placed in the lowest two tiers, State develops country action plans to
help guide governments in improving their antitrafficking efforts.
Trafficking in Persons Report Has Raised Global Awareness about Human
Trafficking:
The Trafficking in Persons Report has raised global awareness about
human trafficking and spurred some governments that had failed to
comply with the minimum standards to adopt antitrafficking measures.
According to U.S. government and international organization officials
and representatives of trafficking victim advocacy groups, this is due
to the combination of a public assessment of foreign governments'
antitrafficking efforts and potential economic consequences for those
that fail to meet minimum standards and do not make an effort to do so.
U.S. government officials cited a number of cases in which foreign
governments improved their antitrafficking efforts in response to their
tier placements. For example, State and USAID officials cited the case
of Jamaica, a source country for child trafficking into the sex trade,
which was placed on tier 3 in the 2005 report. The country narrative
noted deficiencies in Jamaica's antitrafficking measures and reported
that the government was not making significant efforts to comply with
the minimum standards. Jamaica failed to investigate, prosecute, or
convict any traffickers during the previous year, despite the passage
of a law to protect minors. In response, the Jamaican government
created an antitrafficking unit within its police force and conducted
raids that led to nine trafficking-related arrests.
In addition, the 2004 report placed Japan on the tier 2 watch list, and
the country narrative noted that Japan is a destination country for
large numbers of foreign women and children who are trafficked for
sexual exploitation. It highlighted weaknesses in Japan's law
enforcement efforts. For example, the lack of scrutiny of Japan's
entertainer visas reportedly allowed traffickers to use them to bring
victims into the country. The country narrative also mentioned Japan's
failure to comply with minimum standards for protecting victims,
deporting foreign trafficking victims as undocumented aliens who had
committed a crime by entering the country illegally. According to State
officials and the 2005 report, the Japanese government responded to the
report's criticisms by tightening the issuance of entertainer visas and
ceasing the criminal treatment of trafficking victims.
Governments of countries placed on tier 3 that do not implement the
recommendations in the country action plan may be subject to sanctions
or other penalties. The United States, for example, may oppose
assistance for the country from international financial institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund.[Footnote 28] Since 2003, full
or partial sanctions have been applied to eight countries,[Footnote 29]
most of which were already under sanctions from the United States.
Limitations in the 2005 Trafficking in Persons Report Affect Its
Credibility as a Diplomatic Tool:
According to the presidential directive and the 2005 Trafficking in
Persons Report, the annual report is intended as a tool to help the
United States engage foreign governments in fighting human trafficking.
According to U.S. government officials, the report's effectiveness as a
diplomatic tool for discussing human trafficking with foreign
governments depends on its credibility. The country narratives used as
the basis for ranking decisions should provide clear and comprehensive
assessments of foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts and
demonstrate consistent application of the standards. Our analysis of
the 2005 report found limitations in the country narratives, and State
officials in the Regional Bureaus expressed concerns that these
limitations detract from the report's credibility and usefulness. These
include some countries' inclusion in the report based on unreliable
data, incomplete explanations of compliance with the minimum standards
by some of the highest-ranked countries, and country narratives that
did not clearly indicate how governments complied with certain
standards and criteria. We also found criticisms of the process for
resolving disputes about country inclusion and tier rankings.
Some Countries' Inclusion in the Report Based on Unreliable Data:
The TVPA requires State to rank the antitrafficking efforts of
governments of countries that are sources, transit points, or
destinations for a "significant number" of victims of severe forms of
trafficking. Since 2001, State has used a threshold of 100 victims to
determine whether or not to include a country in the Trafficking in
Persons Report.[Footnote 30] However, as discussed earlier in this
report, reliable estimates of the number of trafficking victims are
generally not available. For example, according to State officials, one
country was included in the report because a junior political officer
stated that at least 300 trafficking victims were in the country and
that the government's efforts to combat trafficking should be assessed.
According to these officials, this statement was based on the political
officer's informal survey of brothels in that country. Since then,
other embassy officials, including the ambassador, have argued that the
country does not have a significant number of victims, but it continues
to appear in the report. In addition, State officials cited Estonia as
a country that was included in the report based on an IOM official's
informal estimate of more than 100 victims. State officials said that a
subsequent embassy-funded study of trafficking in Estonia found that
the country had around 100 confirmed victims in a 4-year period, but
internal discussions have not led to the removal of Estonia from the
Trafficking in Persons Report. However, the country narrative for
Estonia in the 2005 report was modified from previous years to state
that Estonia is a source and transit country for a "small number" of
trafficking victims.
Our review of country narratives in the 2005 report revealed some cases
in which it was not clear how the situations used to justify the
country's inclusion in the report constituted severe forms of
trafficking under U.S. law. For example, the country narratives for
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore described cases in which human
smugglers abandoned people, domestic workers were abused by their
employers, and foreign women engaged in prostitution. The narratives
either did not clearly establish whether the situation involved victims
of severe forms of trafficking or failed to provide enough information
about the magnitude of the problem to convey the sense that the number
of victims had reached 100 people. According to State officials,
inclusion of human rights abuses or labor issues in the description of
foreign countries' human trafficking problem can damage the report's
credibility with foreign governments. Some State officials have
suggested abandoning the threshold of 100 victims and including all
countries in the report.
Unclear Threshold for Meeting Standard on Prescribed Punishment:
Our analysis of the 2005 report found that many narratives did not
clearly state whether and how the government met the minimum standard
regarding stringency of punishment for severe forms of trafficking (see
app. I for a description of the methodology used to analyze the 2005
report). This standard requires that prescribed penalties for severe
forms of trafficking be sufficiently stringent to deter such
trafficking and that they reflect the heinous nature of the offense.
The Trafficking Office has not defined a threshold for what constitutes
"sufficiently stringent" punishment. Our analysis showed that in over
one-third of cases, the 2005 report's country narratives did not
characterize the prescribed penalties as sufficiently stringent.
Moreover, in many cases the narratives do not state whether or not the
government met this minimum standard. State officials agreed that this
subjectivity makes it difficult for reports staff and foreign
governments to know what constitutes compliance, negatively affecting
the report's credibility and utility as a diplomatic tool.
Narratives for Highest-Ranked Countries Did Not Fully Explain Their
Placement:
Our analysis of the 2005 report found that many country narratives do
not provide a comprehensive assessment of foreign governments'
compliance with the minimum standards, resulting in incomplete
explanations for tier placements. Although the 2005 report discusses
the importance of imposing strict penalties on traffickers, we found
that only 2 of the 24 tier 1 country narratives clearly explained
compliance with the second minimum standard established in the TVPA,
which, among other things, calls for governments to prescribe
punishment for sex trafficking that is commensurate with that for grave
crimes such as forcible sexual assault. The narratives for 17 (71
percent) of the tier 1 countries provided information on penalties for
sex trafficking but did not compare these with the governments'
penalties for other grave crimes. Five (21 percent) tier 1 countries
did not mention whether the governments complied with this standard at
all.
Our analysis of the tier 1 country narratives in the 2005 report also
showed that, while most explained how these governments fully met the
core criteria for the fourth minimum standard, related to government
efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking, some did not. A
senior official at the Trafficking Office confirmed this finding. We
found that country narratives for 11 (46 percent) of the 24 tier 1
countries raised concerns about the governments' compliance with key
parts of core criteria used to determine if the government is making a
serious and sustained effort to eliminate severe forms of trafficking.
However, the narratives failed to explain whether and how the
governments' success in meeting the other core criteria outweighed
these deficiencies and justified their placement in tier 1.
For example, the 2005 report described France, a tier 1 country, as a
destination for thousands of trafficked women and children. Although
the report states that the French government fully complied with the
minimum standards, our analysis of the narrative found that the first
three standards were not mentioned. Furthermore, the narrative also
discussed the French government's failure to comply with the criterion
on protecting trafficking victims, one of the key objectives of U.S.
antitrafficking legislation. The narrative discusses a French law,
which harmed trafficking victims by arresting, jailing, and fining
them. Senior officials at the Trafficking Office are concerned about
France's lack of compliance with the victim protection criterion. The
narrative, however, did not balance the discussion of these
deficiencies by explaining how the government's compliance with the
other core criteria allowed it to meet the fourth minimum standard and
thus be placed in tier 1.
Similarly, the country narratives for two tier 1 countries stated that
the governments were not taking steps to combat official corruption,
which the 2004 report highlights as a major impediment to
antitrafficking efforts. For example, the narrative for Nepal, a source
country for women and children trafficked to India and the Middle East,
states that the government fully complied with the minimum standards.
However, the narrative noted that the government has not taken action
against immigration officials, police and judges suspected of
benefiting from trafficking-related graft and corruption, and it did
not explain how the deficiency in this core criteria was outweighed by
Nepal's efforts with other core criteria.
Internal Process for Resolving Disagreements Lacks Credibility:
According to State officials, there are a considerable number of
disagreements within State about the initial tier placements proposed
by the Trafficking Office. These disagreements are not surprising,
given that the Trafficking Office focuses exclusively on
antitrafficking efforts while the Regional Bureaus manage bilateral
relations, which comprise a wide range of issues. However, it is
important that the process for resolving these conflicts be credible.
Some disagreements on tier rankings are resolved in meetings between
the Trafficking Office and the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of the
Regional Bureaus, but most are elevated to the undersecretary level. A
few disagreements are even referred to the Secretary of State for
resolution. According to State officials, some disputes are worked out
by clarifying misunderstandings or providing additional information.
Although Trafficking Office staff said that these discussions are
constructive, staff in State's Regional Bureaus said that many
disagreements over tier rankings are resolved by a process of
"horsetrading," whereby the Trafficking Office agrees to raise some
countries' tier rankings in exchange for lowering others. In these
cases, political considerations may take precedence over a neutral
assessment of foreign governments' compliance with minimum standards to
combat trafficking. Senior officials at the Trafficking Office
acknowledged that political considerations sometimes come into play
when making the tier ranking decisions.
Trafficking in Persons Report Is Not Used to Prioritize Programs or
Target Resources:
The Trafficking Office's implementation plan and the 2005 Trafficking
in Persons Report states that the report should be used as a guide to
target resources to prosecution, protection, and prevention programs.
However, we found that U.S. government agencies do not systematically
link the programs they fund to combat trafficking overseas with the
tier rankings or the deficiencies that are identified in the report's
country narratives. For example, U.S. agencies did not use the report
when they selected high-priority countries to participate in the 2-year
$50 million Presidential Initiative to Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Moreover, we found that many of the country narratives describing
deficiencies in foreign governments' antitrafficking efforts were
incomplete, making it difficult to use them to guide programming.
U.S. Government Lacks Mechanism to Link Its Overseas Programs to
Deficiencies Identified In Trafficking in Persons Report:
Officials from State's Trafficking Office acknowledged that the
management processes and staff responsible for producing the report are
not linked with those managing overseas assistance programs. State's
Inspector General reported in November 2005 that the lack of
synchronization between the Trafficking Office's grants cycle (January
and February) and reporting cycle (June) makes it difficult to address
the shortcomings identified in the report and the countries'
programming needs. In addition, most of the State requests for grant
proposals that we reviewed were generic in scope and were not tailored
to address a specific problem or priority. For example, one request for
proposal was directed broadly at prevention and protection programs in
Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America. In addition, officials from
State's regional bureaus said that most of their requests for grant
proposals are sent to all the embassies in their region and are not
targeted to those countries on lower tiers. However, officials from one
regional bureau stated that they sent a request for grant proposals
dealing with law enforcement issues only to those countries on the tier
2 watch list to ensure the programs were targeted where they were most
needed.
The presidential directive stated that agencies are to develop a
consensus on the highest priority countries to receive antitrafficking
assistance through interagency consultation and in consultation with
U.S. missions overseas. The Trafficking Office's implementation plan
called for using the annual Trafficking in Persons Report as a guide to
target assistance, with priority to countries ranked in the lowest
tiers and assistance to only those tier 1 and 2 countries with limited
resources and whose governments showed a clear commitment to combat
trafficking. In fiscal year 2005, the U.S. government obligated about
$96 million to support more than 265 international antitrafficking
programs in about 100 countries. Only one-fourth of this money went to
countries ranked in the lowest two tiers (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2005 Obligations for Antitrafficking Activities
by Tier Ranking:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: The "other" category refers to obligations directed to
multicountry or regional programs that cannot be categorized by tier
placement.
[End of figure]
Through the Senior Policy Operating Group, in January 2004 agencies
selected eight countries to target their efforts for the presidential
initiative to combat trafficking in persons; however, documentation of
the decision-making process does not mention use of the Trafficking in
Persons Report's tier rankings or country narratives to affect this
selection. Officials from the Trafficking Office and the documents we
reviewed stated that the Group selected countries based on several
factors, including anticipated host government commitment and the
ability to start implementation in a short time frame. The eight
countries selected were ranked in tier 2 in the 2003 Trafficking in
Persons Report, suggesting that their governments showed some
commitment to combating trafficking by making efforts to comply with
the minimum standards and criteria outlined in the TVPA. However, it
was not clear how the Group applied the criteria in selecting the
countries. For example, host government commitment to combat
trafficking did not necessarily translate into a willingness to receive
U.S. assistance. The Department of State cables indicate that the
governments in Brazil and India did not support U.S. efforts to fund
antitrafficking programs under the presidential initiative. In
addition, despite an emphasis on selecting countries in which the
United States could start implementation in a short time frame,
agreements necessary to conduct law enforcement projects were not in
place in Brazil and Mexico, causing these initiatives to be delayed.
Also, according to an agency official and documents we reviewed,
Tanzania was included because a senior official had just traveled there
and thought trafficking might be a problem.
Incomplete Assessments of Foreign Governments' Antitrafficking
Deficiencies:
The country narratives' incomplete assessments of deficiencies in
foreign governments' efforts to combat trafficking diminish the
Trafficking in Persons Report's utility as a programming guide. Our
analysis of the 2005 report found that many country narratives failed
to include information on the governments' compliance with some
standards and core criteria, making it difficult for U.S. government
officials to use the report as a programming guide. For example, all
narratives for countries in the lowest two tiers contained some
discussion of government efforts to protect trafficking victims.
However, we found that 80 percent failed to mention key aspects of the
victim protection criterion, including whether victims were encouraged
to cooperate with law enforcement, whether the government provided
legal alternatives to deportation, and whether victims were protected
from inappropriate treatment as criminals (see fig. 5). In addition, 92
percent of country narratives for tier 2 countries, which receive the
largest share of U.S. government antitrafficking funds, did not mention
compliance with certain standards and criteria.[Footnote 31]
Figure 5: Completeness of Country Narratives for Governments in Tier 2
Watch List and Tier 3:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Conclusion:
The United States has placed trafficking on the international agenda
and has spurred governments and organizations into action through its
funding of international programs and the publication of the annual
Trafficking in Persons Report. Additionally, the development of a
victim-centered approach based upon prevention, protection, and
prosecution programs has provided an operational framework for both
governments and practitioners in the field. However, more than 5 years
since the passage of the TVPA, the U.S. government lacks fundamental
information on the nature and extent of the global trafficking problem
and an overall strategy for agencies to target their programs and
resources abroad.
As the United States and other countries work to identify victims of
trafficking, the scope of the global trafficking problem remains
unknown in terms of overall numbers within countries of origin;
victims' gender, age, and type of exploitation suffered; and the
profile and methods of the perpetrators. The United States has provided
about $375 million in antitrafficking assistance since 2001 for
projects in about 100 countries. However, the lack of an overall
government strategy which ties together and leverages the program
expertise and resources of agencies with the knowledge of victims'
identity and location, raises questions about whether antitrafficking
activities are targeted where they are most needed. Furthermore, little
evaluation research has been conducted to determine which international
antitrafficking activities are working or how best to tailor them to
meet specific needs.
The fight against human trafficking will almost certainly require years
of effort and the continued monitoring of governments' actions. To
enhance its usefulness as a diplomatic tool, the narratives and country
rankings in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report must be viewed as
credible by governments and informed human rights and country
observers. However, the report does not comprehensively or clearly
describe how decisions about tier rankings were reached. Moreover,
problems identified in the report provide the means to better identify
program needs and allocate resources, but agencies have not linked
their activities to identified deficiencies.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve efforts to combat trafficking in persons abroad, we
recommend that the Secretary of State, in her capacity as Chair of the
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, consider the
following actions:
1. Work closely with relevant agencies as they implement U.S. law
calling for research into the creation of an effective mechanism to
develop a global estimate of trafficking. This could include assigning
a trafficking data and research unit to serve as an interagency focal
point charged with developing an overall research strategy, collecting
and analyzing data, and directing research.
2. In conjunction with relevant agencies, develop and implement a
strategic approach that would delineate agency roles and
responsibilities in relation to each other, strengthen mechanisms for
integrating activities, and determine priorities, measurable goals,
time frames, performance measures, and a methodology to gauge results.
3. To improve the credibility of State's annual report on trafficking
in persons, we recommend that the Secretary of State ensure that the
report clearly documents the rationale and support for tier rankings
and improve the report's usefulness for programming by making the
narratives more comprehensive.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of
State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and
Labor; the Administrator of USAID; the U.S. government agency that
prepares the trafficking estimate; and cognizant officials at the ILO,
IOM, and UNODC, or their designees. We received written comments from
State, which are reprinted in appendix V along with our responses to
specific points.
State generally agreed with our recommendations. State agreed with our
first recommendation to work closely with relevant agencies as they
implement U.S. law calling for research into the creation of an
effective mechanism to develop a global estimate of trafficking and
provided detailed suggestions for areas of future research that are
consistent with our findings. Regarding our second recommendation that
the Secretary of State develop and implement a strategic approach,
State recognized the need for better performance measures and enhanced
interagency coordination while also stating that roles and
responsibilities have been established. In response, we clarified our
recommendation to state that agencies' roles and responsibilities
should be delineated in relation to each other, consistent with our
report findings. In response to our third recommendation, State said
that while its annual Trafficking in Persons Report can improve, it has
become a much richer, more useful product since first published in
2001. State also said our report includes some useful recommendations
that the department will explore integrating with ongoing efforts in
light of available resources. In addition, State commented that its
2006 Trafficking in Persons Report offers a greater and more consistent
examination of the minimum standards as they apply to each country. We
conducted a selective review of 26 tier 1 country narratives in the
2006 report and found that many of the concerns we cited in our report
remain. For example, none of the tier 1 country narratives clearly
explained whether or not the government complied with the second
minimum standard established in the TVPA, which, among other things,
calls for governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking that
is commensurate with that for grave crimes such as forcible sexual
assault.
In oral comments, the U.S. government agency that prepares the
trafficking estimate fundamentally concurs with our characterization of
the U.S. global estimate of trafficking flows. The agency stated that
it has sought to improve upon the 2004 estimate's accuracy and utility
through working with an outside contractor with the intention of
thoroughly documenting and vetting a methodology, as well as preparing
detailed recommendations for improving future estimates. According to
the agency, many of this contractor's initial recommendations have been
in-line with those delineated in our report. Despite these efforts and
the inherent difficulty of preparing estimates of hidden populations,
the agency agreed with our overall findings--particularly with the idea
that housing the estimate in the intelligence community makes it opaque
and inaccessible. The agency stated that it believes that other U.S.
government agencies are best positioned to produce the global
trafficking estimate in the future, because they have access to the
same unclassified data, would be better able to vet the methodology,
and could provide additional information to allow for a closer link
between international and domestic human trafficking flow estimates.
State, Justice, Labor, USAID, the U.S. government agency that prepared
the trafficking estimate, and the ILO, IOM, and UNODC submitted
technical comments which we have incorporated into this report as
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretaries of State, Justice, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, and Labor; the Administrator of USAID; the U.S.
government agency that prepares the trafficking estimate; ILO; IOM; and
UNODC; and interested congressional committees. Copies of this report
will also be made available to other interested parties on request. In
addition, this report will be made available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9601. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Thomas Melito, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to examine (1) estimates of the extent of global
trafficking in persons, (2) the U.S. government's strategy to combat
trafficking in persons abroad, and (3) the Department of State's
(State) process for evaluating foreign governments' antitrafficking
efforts.
To examine estimates of the extent of global human trafficking, we
conducted an analysis of the global trafficking databases developed and
maintained by the U.S. government, the International Organization for
Migration (IOM), the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the
U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). We met with officials from each
organization, determined the reliability of their global trafficking
data, reviewed documents and assessed their methodologies for
collecting and analyzing human trafficking data, and analyzed the data
collected by IOM. We examined ILO, UNODC, and IOM reports.[Footnote 32]
We also reviewed the existing relevant literature on data and
methodologies used in global human trafficking research. We collected
reports, journal articles, conference presentations, U.S. government
sponsored studies, and books that discuss human trafficking. We read
and analyzed these documents and used them to identify issues that
affect the quality of data on trafficking. We grouped these issues into
three major categories: availability, reliability, and comparability.
To examine the U.S. government's strategy for combating human
trafficking abroad, we reviewed U.S. laws and presidential directives
describing actions that various U.S. government entities were to
undertake in combating trafficking. These include the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 and its reauthorizations in 2003
and 2005, Executive Order 13257, and National Security Presidential
Directive 22. We also analyzed documents and interviewed officials from
the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security
(DHS), Justice, Labor, State, and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). Documents we reviewed include each
agency's plan to implement the presidential directive, agency and
project-level monitoring and evaluation documents, project proposals,
interagency coordination guidance, the Bureau Performance Plan from
State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, USAID's
strategy to combat trafficking in persons, as well as regional and
country-level strategic framework documents.
To examine State's process for evaluating foreign governments'
antitrafficking efforts, we reviewed 122 country narratives in the 2005
Trafficking in Persons Report. We examined the narratives for all 66
countries in tier 1, tier 2 watch list, and tier 3. For the 77
narratives in tier 2, we reviewed all of the narratives for the 35
countries whose tiers had changed from the previous year's report. For
the remaining 42 country narratives, we drew a random probability
sample of 21 countries. With this probability sample, each narrative in
the 2005 report had a nonzero probability of being included and that
probability could be computed for any member. Each sample element was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all
the narratives in the 2005 report, including those not selected.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on a random selection
of tier 2 countries, our sample is only one of a large number of
samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided
different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g.,
plus or minus 5 percentage points). This is the interval that would
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we
could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of
the intervals in this report will include the true values in the study
population. All percentage estimates from the narrative review have
margins of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points or less, unless
otherwise noted.
In addition, we systematically compared the country narratives
describing these governments' antitrafficking efforts with the minimum
standards and five core criteria in the legislation and determined
whether or not the country narrative mentioned each standard or
criteria. If the country narrative did not mention a standard or
criteria, we coded that as "not mentioned." If the country narrative
did mention a standard or criteria, we determined whether the narrative
showed that the government complied or did not comply with the standard
or criteria. If we determined that the narrative showed that the
government complied with the standard or criteria, we coded that as
"yes." If we determined that the narrative showed that the government
did not comply with the standard or criteria, we coded that as "no." In
some cases, the narrative mentioned a standard or criteria, but we
could not determine conclusively whether or not the narrative
demonstrated the government's compliance. We coded those cases as "not
clear." Finally, elements of some criteria were not applicable to
certain countries. For example, if the report described a country as a
source of trafficking victims rather than as a destination for victims,
the criterion regarding provision of victims with legal alternatives to
deportation would not apply. We coded these cases as "not applicable."
We then tallied the number of responses in each category.
Finally, to ensure analytical validity and reliability, our analysis
involved multiple phases of checking and review of analytical
procedures, categories, and results. Two GAO analysts reviewed a
selection of country narratives, independently coded them, and agreed
on the basis for the coding decisions. Next, one GAO analyst performed
the coding for the remaining country narratives. A second GAO analyst
reviewed a number of these coding decisions and both analysts discussed
them. Finally, a third GAO analyst performed a review of all coding
decisions and tabulations. In addition, to ensure the reliability of
the funding data used, we reviewed the information collected by the
State Department on each agency's funding obligations. We then checked
with each individual agency to verify that the amounts State reported
were correct.
We conducted our review from September 2005 to May 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Methodologies Used by Four Organizations to Collect Data
on Human Trafficking:
This appendix describes the data sources, data validation, methodology,
and key assumptions used by the U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM to
collect data on and/or estimate the extent of human trafficking as well
as the limitations of these databases. (See tables 4 and 5.)
Table 4: Four Organizations' Data Sources and Validation:
Episodes/ cases;
U.S. government: 1500;
ILO[A]: 1534;
UNODC[B]: 4950;
IOM[C]: 7711.
Data sources;
U.S. government: Public sources--articles primarily identified and
translated into English by the Foreign Broadcasting Information
Service, Stop Traffic List Serve, IOM, UN, ILO and NGOs based on
trafficking incidents in 2000 to 2001;
ILO[A]: Public sources--1500 publications in multiple languages such as
reports, court and police records, trade unions, NGOs, academia and the
media between 1995 to 2004;
UNODC[B]: Public sources--; publications such as reports, periodicals,
books, Web sites and others from 113 individual source institutions
between 1996 to 2003;
IOM[C]: Data collected by; IOM missions from victims starting in Kosovo
in 1999/2000 and expanding to 26 countries through 2005.
Data validation;
U.S. government: Performed by one analyst;
ILO[A]: Based on an organized procedure involving four steps;
UNODC[B]: Performed by one researcher;
IOM[C]: Inaccuracies corrected by the original data entry official.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM data.
[A] For a detailed discussion, see Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle
and Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World,
ILO (Geneva: April 2005).
[B] For a detailed discussion, see UNODC, Trafficking in Persons Global
Patterns (Vienna: April 2006).
[C] For a detailed discussion, see IOM, Data and Research on Human
Trafficking: A Global Survey (Geneva: 2005).
[End of table]
Table 5: Four Organizations' Methodologies, Key Assumptions and
Limitations:
Methodology;
U.S. government:
(A) average of aggregate estimates of reported and unreported victims;
(B) data augmentation to fill in missing values.[D];
ILO[A]: Estimation based on two extrapolations:
(A) estimation of all reported victims[E];
(B) estimation of all reported and unreported victims.[F];
UNODC[B]:
(A) assignment of a score of 1 each time a country is reported by a
different institution;
(B) coding gender, age, and type of trafficking using the same
technique;
IOM[C]: Not applicable.
Key assumptions;
U.S. government:
For (A) above--underlying data of total victims are reliable and
comparable;
For (B) above--; technical conditions for the procedure are plausible;
ILO[A]:
For (A) above-- technical conditions for the procedure are met;
For (B) above--; the ratio of the average; duration of a case divided
by the probability of being reported is greater than or equal to 10;
UNODC[B]:
For both (A) and (B) above--; how much a country is affected by the
trafficking problem depends on the frequency of it being reported by
different institutions;
IOM[C]: Not applicable.
Limitations;
U.S. government:
* internal trafficking not studied;
* subject to very limited peer review;
* may not be replicable;
ILO[A]:
* limited to sources in 11 languages;
UNODC[B]:
* no information about the number of victims;
* no measure of the severity of the problem;
* internal trafficking not studied;
IOM[C]:
* data limited to the countries where IOM has a presence;
* confidentiality of victim assistance;
* may not be generalizable.
U.S. government:
* cannot be used for time series studies;
* not based on reliable country level data.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. government, ILO, UNODC, and IOM data.
[A] For a detailed discussion, see Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle
and Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum Estimate of Forced Labour in the World,
ILO (Geneva: April 2005).
[B] For a detailed discussion, see UNODC, Trafficking in Persons Global
Patterns (Vienna: April 2006).
[C] For a detailed discussion, see IOM, Data and Research on Human
Trafficking: A Global Survey (Geneva: 2005).
[D] The data augmentation is performed using Monte Carlo Markov chain
simulations with Bayesian inference. Making use of plausible values for
unknown information, the technique replaces missing data under a wide
range of conditions to reflect uncertainty in the open source
information regarding the type of trafficking, age group, gender,
country of origin and destination.
[E] The estimation procedure uses the capture-recapture method. Two
random samples of reported human trafficking cases are independently
drawn and the counts of common and different cases between the two
samples are used to estimate the total number of reported trafficking
cases.
[F] Under the most conservative assumption, the minimum estimate
corresponds to assigning to the probability of being reported a value
of 1.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Eight U.S. Government Entities' Data on Human
Trafficking:
This appendix describes the data on human trafficking maintained by
eight U.S. government entities. (See table 6.)
Table 6: Data on Human Trafficking Maintained by U.S. Government
Entities:
Agency: Justice--Office for Victims of Crime;
Trafficking data fields:
--Type of trafficking (labor, sex, other);
--Identification of victims (nationality, age, gender).
Agency: Justice-Civil Rights Division;
Trafficking data fields: Trafficking cases prosecuted in the United
States, including;
-- Information about traffickers;
--Type of trafficking (commercial sex, involuntary servitude).
Agency: Justice-Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Investigation
Division;
Trafficking data fields:
--Information about traffickers (names, business involved, criminal
organization connections);
--Type of trafficking (commercial sex, migrant farms, construction,
labor camps, domestic servitude);
--Identification of victims (nationality, age, gender, recruitment
method);
--Points of entry;
--Logistics (use of illegal documents, funding).
Agency: Justice--Bureau of Justice Assistance;
Trafficking data fields:
--Number of potential domestic victims identified by task forces;
-- Number of identified potential domestic victims for which law
enforcement has requested continued presence[A] in the United States.
Agency: HHS;
Trafficking data fields: Trafficking victims certified in the United
States, including;
--Age (minor or adult);
--Gender;
-- Geographic distribution of the certification (i.e., which U.S.
state);
--Nationality.
Agency: DHS;
Trafficking data fields: Trafficking victims awarded continued
presence:
--Date of birth;
--Gender;
--Nationality;
Information about traffickers, including:
--Name;
--Nationality;
-- Gender;
--Date of Birth;
--Violation type;
--Statute used to arrest the violator.
Agency: Labor;
Trafficking data fields: Nature and extent of 144 countries' worst
forms of child labor, including children involved in forced labor and
sexual exploitation.
Agency: National Central Bureau (INTERPOL);
Trafficking data fields: Individuals wanted internationally for
trafficking/smuggling related crimes.
Sources: Departments of Justice, HHS, DHS, Labor, and the National
Central Bureau.
[A] Federal law enforcement officials who encounter alien victims of
severe forms of trafficking in persons who are potential witnesses to
that trafficking may request that DHS grant the continued presence of
these victims in the United States in order to ensure prosecution of
those responsible.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: State's Process for Assessing Foreign Governments'
Compliance with U.S. Minimum Standards to Eliminate Human Trafficking:
Table 7: Minimum Standards and Criteria for the Elimination of Human
Trafficking:
Standard 1;
The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of
trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.
Standard 2;
For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving
force, fraud, coercion, or in which the victim of sex trafficking is a
child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which
includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of
the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for
grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.
Standard 3;
For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking
in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment
that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects
the heinous nature of the offense.
Standard 4;
The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts
to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.
Criterion 1;
Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates and
prosecutes acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons, and convicts
and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place wholly
or partly within the territory of the country. After reasonable
requests from the Department of State for data regarding
investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government,
which does not provide such data, consistent with the capacity of such
government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have
vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced such acts.
During the periods prior to the annual report submitted on June 1,
2004, and on June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until September
30 of each such year, the Secretary of State may disregard the
presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government has
provided some data to the Department of State regarding such acts and
the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good-
faith effort to collect such data.
Criterion 2;
Whether the government of the country protects victims of severe forms
of trafficking in persons and encourages their assistance in
investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including provisions
for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they
would face retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not
inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solely for
unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked.
Criterion 3;
Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to prevent
severe trafficking in persons, such as measures to inform and educate
the public, including potential victims, about the causes and
consequences of severe trafficking.
Criterion 4;
Whether the government of the country cooperates with other governments
in the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in
persons.
Criterion 5;
Whether the government of the country extradites persons charged with
acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons on substantially the
same terms and to substantially the same extent as persons charged with
other serious crimes (or, to the extent such extradition would be
inconsistent with the laws of such country or with international
agreements to which the country is a party, whether the government is
taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and
treaties so as to permit such extradition.)
Criterion 6;
Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and
emigration patterns for evidence of severe forms of trafficking in
persons and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond to
any such evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous
investigation and prosecution of acts of such trafficking, as well as
with the protection of human rights of victims and the internationally
recognized human right to leave any country, including one's own, and
to return to one's own country.
Criterion 7;
Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates,
prosecutes, convicts, and sentences public officials who participate in
or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons, and takes all
appropriate measures against officials who condone such trafficking.
After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data
regarding investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a
government, which does not provide such data, consistent with the
capacity of such government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not
to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced
such acts. During the periods prior to the annual report submitted on
June 1, 2004 and on June 1, 2005, and the periods afterwards until
September 30 of each such year, the Secretary of State may disregard
the presumption contained in the preceding sentence if the government
has provided some data to the Department of State regarding such acts
and the Secretary has determined that the government is making a good-
faith effort to collect such data.
Criterion 8;
Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the
country that are noncitizens of such countries is insignificant.
Criterion 9;
Whether the government of the country, consistent with the capacity of
such government, systematically monitors its efforts to satisfy the
criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and makes available
publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.
Criterion 10;
Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable progress in
eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the assessment
in the previous year.
Sources: TVPA 2000 and TVPA 2003.
Note: Criteria in bold text are those that the Trafficking Office has
designated "core criteria."
[End of table]
Figure 6 illustrates the Department of State's process for producing
the annual Trafficking in Persons Report.
Figure 6: Key Elements of the Trafficking in Persons Report Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of State Information.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Jun 29 2006:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Human
Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance
U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad," GAO Job Code 320374.
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
Paula Goode, Deputy Director, Bureau of Democracy and Global Affairs,
Office to Monitor and Combating Trafficking in Persons, at (202) 312-
9882.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Bradford R. Higgins:
cc:
GAO - Thomas Melito:
G/TIP - John Miller:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to
Enhance U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad, (GAO-06-825, GAO Code
320374):
The U.S. Department of State welcomes the Congressional inquiry
regarding the status of U.S. international efforts to combat
trafficking in persons which led to the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report "Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and
Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts Abroad."
The Administration has registered tremendous accomplishments since the
passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in late 2000.
In less than five years, beginning with the opening of the Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) within the Department
of State in late 2001, the following benchmarks have been achieved:
forming the Cabinet-level President's Task Force on Trafficking in
Persons and the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) within the
Department of State and organizing regular meetings of those groups to
coordinate anti-TIP grant policies by U.S. agencies; managing the
growth of G/TIP, which tripled in size between 2002 and 2005;
distributing $375 million dollars worldwide in anti-trafficking
assistance; developing 32 regional U.S. anti-TIP taskforces by the U.S.
Department of Justice; forming 17 broad-based anti-TIP coalitions
across the U.S. by the Department of Health and Human Services;
encouraging the conviction of trafficking criminals worldwide, which
rose to a record 4,766 in 2005; encouraging foreign governments to
approve comprehensive anti-trafficking laws, which increased to a
record 41 new or amended laws in 2005; and initiating a discussion
aimed at decreasing the demand for human trafficking victims.
Further, the Department of State completed six annual Trafficking in
Persons Reports as mandated by Congress, the world's most comprehensive
anti-trafficking assessment. It is used by foreign governments, NGOs,
and international organizations to raise awareness and motivate action.
These measurable and diverse achievements have elevated the human
trafficking issue, both domestically and globally.
The GAO report concludes that the Secretary of State should: 1) improve
information on human trafficking; 2) strengthen the strategic framework
for anti-trafficking programs; and 3) increase documentation related to
country rankings in the TIP Report. These are goals shared by everyone
working in the anti-human trafficking arena. Our responses to GAO's
specific recommendations follow:
Recommendation l: Work closely with relevant agencies as they implement
U.S. law calling for research into the creation of an effective
mechanism to develop a global estimate of trafficking. This could
include assigning a trafficking data and research unit to serve as an
interagency focal point charged with developing an overall strategy,
collecting and analyzing data, and directing research.
The Department of State agrees that more research would help in the
fight against modern day slavery. The GAO correctly notes that there is
only one part time analyst position devoted to global estimates.
However, the Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons (G/TIP) continues to pursue better estimates of the scope of
the problem through the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the
academic community. To further this work, the Senior Policy Operating
Group (SPOG) has established a subcommittee on Trafficking in Persons
Research to insure regular interagency information sharing on TIP
research projects, to avoid duplication of effort, to shape future
research agendas, and to work to close the most important data gaps. G/
TIP has also increased its emphasis on research and plans to set aside
a substantial portion of its program budget each year for TIP research,
including research that fills major data gaps and research that
evaluates the effectiveness of U.S. Government anti-trafficking
programs. G/TIP funds the International Organization for Migration
(IOM) global database and has full access to the quantitative data that
IOM generates. With this knowledge, should Congress still decide to set
up a trafficking data and research unit as suggested by GAO, the State
Department will work closely with other agencies to set up such a unit.
Further, the Department believes that a better global estimate of the
number of TIP victims, while desirable, should not be the primary focus
of additional research initiatives. What law enforcement officers and
social service providers need most is "actionable research" informing
anti-trafficking policy. A more valuable approach for appropriating
resources and creating programs would be research providing information
on the comparative severity of trafficking in particular regions,
countries, or localities, information on the methods used by
traffickers to coerce and exploit victims and information on the
effectiveness of anti- trafficking programs. Over time, as law
enforcement agencies and social service agencies gain greater
experience and compile more statistics, arriving at a more reliable
global will become possible.
While there have been recent studies that examine possible links
between prostitution and trafficking, the State Department agrees with
the GAO Report that more research is always helpful. As noted in the
2006 Trafficking in Persons Report and codified in National Security
Presidential Directive 22 the U.S. Government "opposes prostitution and
related activities, including pimping, pandering and maintaining
brothels, as contributing to the phenomenon of human trafficking. These
activities are inherently harmful and dehumanizing." Moreover, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005
(also cited in the 2006 Report) "brings important attention to reducing
the demand for the commercial sex acts that fuel trafficking." Further,
to be effective, anti-trafficking strategies must target both supply
(the traffickers) and demand (the owners, consumers, or sex buyers in
the case of trafficking for sexual exploitation).
Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a strategy that would delineate
agency roles and responsibilities and mechanisms for integrating
activities and determine priorities, measurable goals, timeframes,
performance measures, and a methodology to gauge results.
The State Department believes roles and responsibilities of government
agencies in combating trafficking in persons have been established.
Congress laid out the roles and responsibilities in the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) and subsequent reauthorizations
in 2003 and 2005. Each federal agency or department has its own
legislation and corresponding appropriation that provides each
organization with its mission goals.
The State Department, through the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG)
and the President's Interagency Task Force (PITF), has played a clear
leadership role in creating information sharing mechanisms and forums
to promote coordination and avoid duplication. The SPOG, chaired by G/
TIP, creates an active forum where interagency representatives work
together to identify strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. approach to
combat trafficking in real time. SPOG quarterly meetings and the annual
Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in
Persons drafted by the U.S. Department of Justice are used as tools to
help identify where the U.S. Government needs to focus its energies to
improve its efforts to combat modern-day slavery. Moreover, several
subcommittees (regulations, grant-making, research, and public affairs,
domestic trafficking and U.S. TIP statistics) focus on improving U.S.
Government efforts to combat TIP. In addition, since the publication of
the 2005 report two positions were added to the G/TIP office to support
the SPOG. They have worked tirelessly over the last year to improve
operation of the PITF and the SPOG. G/TIP is now finalizing an updated
office strategy to guide its efforts to combat modern-day slavery. The
final strategy will address enhanced interagency coordination. Through
the SPOG, federal agencies share information on all anti-trafficking
programs, including those administered as grants.
The GAO suggestion that information be shared earlier in the grant
process is consistent with the law and the SPOG is looking at how to
reconcile the different agency grant processes so as to achieve an
earlier exchange of information. The State Department acknowledges the
need cited in the GAO report for better performance measures; and notes
that efforts to develop measurement tools have been under way for the
past few years. For example, the State Department's Population,
Refugee, and Migration Bureau (PRM) funded IOM in 2003 to develop an
initial set of performance indicators in the context of preventive
information campaigns and victims' assistance. Since FY05, all PRM-
funded anti-trafficking projects include performance indicators. In
2006, in an effort to further develop these tools, PRM funded and
directed IOM to compile a comprehensive list of performance indicators
in the areas of prevention, prosecution and protection, to be developed
in coordination with all interested USG agencies. State, DOL, DOJ, HHS,
USAID and DHS are participating, in an effort to develop common
performance measures. In addition, the U.S. Government is looking for a
coordinated way to measure the results of the President's $50 Million
Anti-Trafficking Initiative.
G/TIP has also developed a list of program indicators for assessing
measurable outcomes of G/TIP-funded projects, including activities
related to public awareness and prevention, protection and assistance
to victims, investigation and prosecution, and training of
professionals. G/TIP shared this list with PRM and the IOM project team
and has begun applying the indicators to new grant projects. Further,
G/TIP has set aside FY 06 funds to evaluate the effectiveness of G/TIP-
funded programs; such work is intended to guide the development of
successful program models and best practices that can be replicated in
other settings. Embassy personnel also play an important role in
guiding project activities, ensuring accountability, and observing
these project activities first- hand. This experience makes for better
local vetting of new projects each year.
Recommendation #3: "To improve the credibility of the State's annual
report on trafficking in persons, we recommend that the Secretary of
State ensure that the report clearly documents the rationale and
support for tier rankings and improve the report's usefulness for
programming by making narratives more comprehensive."
The State Department acknowledges that the TIP Report can improve every
year and, in fact, it has consistently become a much richer, more
useful product since first published in 2001. It is the only global
human trafficking assessment and represents the most comprehensive anti-
trafficking review issued by any government. G/TIP notes that the 2006
TIP Report is far more thorough than the 2005 TIP Report, which is the
subject of this GAO review. The 2006 Report offers greater and more
consistent examination of the minimum standards as they apply to each
country. The TIP Report is a credible and valuable tool used by
international organizations, NGOs, and foreign governments for
information on trafficking in persons and a catalyst for change. As the
GAO report notes, the TIP Report has raised global awareness about
human trafficking and spurred governments to adopt anti-trafficking
measures The State Department believes that the recently-released 2006
TIP Report addresses many of the issues raised by the GAO review.
However, in 2007, the State Department will continue to increase the
comprehensiveness of the TIP Report and seek to provide more detailed
explanation wherever appropriate for tier rankings. G/TIP strives each
year to increase the information in each TIP narrative, and the State
Department feels confident that the 2006 TIP Report reflects a more
complete picture of trafficking in the world, an effort that will
continue in 2007.
Guidance provided by the TVPA, as amended, requires the State
Department to submit to Congress "a list of countries" in each of the
three tiers and also those on the "special watch list." The law does
not require a narrative. In order to make the report more useful, the
State Department provides Congress with a general overview of
trafficking in each country included in the TIP Report. The State
Department believes that as drafted the Report serves as a tightly
focused analytical tool (using multiple sources) to assess governments'
concrete actions to address trafficking. The TVPA does require that the
State Department, as part of making tier determinations, gauge the
degree to which governments show "serious and sustained efforts" (the
fourth minimum standard) and "appreciable progress" when compared to
the assessment in previous years (criterion # 10 under the fourth
minimum standard). Thus, much of the country narrative is focused on
these factors, especially if a country has been on the TIP Report for a
number of years. Countries on the "special watch list" are subject to
TVPA-mandated interim assessments. These assessments serve as a guide
as to how a country is doing before the release of the TIP Report in
June of each year.
Criteria for Country-by-Country Assessments. The State Department
believes these criteria created by Congress are sound, although the
criteria allow for the exercise of policy judgments. As part of the
four minimum standards on which countries are to be judged, ten
criteria are provided under the fourth minimum standard which "should"
be considered as indicia of a government's "serious and sustained"
efforts. These are not mandatory criteria; report narratives cite
specific criteria of the fourth minimum standard only as they are
relevant and indicative of deficiencies in a foreign government's anti-
trafficking performance. Under G/TIP's current guidelines to keep
narratives short, readable, and focused on deficiencies, the Report
does not provide (and the law does not require) an exhaustive
examination in the light of all of the minimum standards' criteria.
Such an approach would create lengthy country narratives that would
lose their readability, effectiveness and policy relevance and would
significantly increase the size of the report.
Incomplete Assessments of Foreign Government's Anti-trafficking
Deficiencies. Here and elsewhere the GAO Report calls for more
information, comprehensive assessment of compliance with all standards
and more complete explanations of ratings. The State Department
believes that keeping the report concise is paramount to keeping it an
effective foreign policy tool, not only rank countries but to spotlight
the issue and encourage action. Some Congressmen, Senators and NGOs
involved in the fight against modern day slavery have praised the
report precisely because it is concise and readable and understand the
report is supplemented by interactions between the State Department and
foreign governments throughout the year.
Credibility as a Diplomatic Tool. The diplomatic credibility of the TIP
Report does not rest solely on the report's contents. The State
Department does not issue the TIP Report without substantial engagement
with host governments. G/TIP, U.S. embassy personnel, and other
officials engage with foreign governments extensively throughout the
year regarding their individual trafficking problems and efforts to
combat them. This engagement is concrete and specific. For many
countries, this engagement culminates in the interviews that inform the
embassy's response to the tasker upon which the annual report is based.
In others, it extends well into the period of the drafting of the
narratives, as the State Department follows up with questions designed
to identify every positive action a country might be taking to fight
trafficking or help its victims.
While some governments routinely denounce the report, NGOS are
encouraged and newspapers often praise it. In addition, the report and
U.S. diplomatic engagement have encouraged numerous governments to take
dramatic actions to address the problem. Several years ago U.S. allies,
Turkey and Greece were placed in Tier 3, the lowest tier. In the three
months after the report, both governments made numerous arrests,
started numerous prosecutions of alleged traffickers, set up victim
referral systems between NGOs and law enforcement and increased support
for NGOs helping survivors. Last year the government of Jamaica, while
critical of the report's Tier 3 rating, in the month after the report's
release set up a special police anti-trafficking unit. In many cases,
governments are spurred by the report to review and more vigorously
address their policies on modern day slavery. For example, the
government of Japan after receiving a Tier 2 Watch List rating in 2004
passed anti-trafficking amendments to its criminal law, drastically
revised its visa requirements to stop the luring of victims to Japan
and started working with anti-TIP NGOs. In these and many other cases
the report has helped to free the victims of modern day slavery.
Unreliable Data to Conclude a Country has 100 Victims of Trafficking.
The GAO Report questions the data used to include countries in the
Report. The TVPA requires the TIP Report to include countries with a
"significant number of victims of severe forms of trafficking." As a
matter of policy the minimum `significant number of victim' has been
defined as 100. Since many countries have not analyzed their crime
statistics through the prism of trafficking in persons before appearing
in the report, and since most victims of the crime are hidden, it is
frequently been necessary to rely on the best available data. In
keeping with the spirit and intent of the TVPA, the report serves to
err on the side of including countries rather than leaving them out. It
must also be emphasized that the "significant number of victims"
threshold does not include a particular timeframe (e.g. one or several
years). If countries were added to or fell from the report annually
based on annual numbers of victims identified, the report's credibility
would be weakened and it would be very difficult to build and continue
a healthy dialog with countries.
Sufficient Sentences for Traffickers. The GAO Report questions whether
the Department has defined "sufficiently stringent" punishment in the
law. The Department has defined "sufficiently stringent" punishment to
mean time in jail, preferably at least several years in jail. Under the
TVPA, the minimum standards require that a government "prescribe
punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and adequately
reflects the heinous nature of the offense," in order to be deemed to
be fully complying with the minimum standards and thus qualify for Tier
1.
The law does not clearly define what constitutes a sufficient sentence
to deter, or that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the
offense. Nor is it clear whether it is sufficient that the government
have a law that prescribes a punishment or whether the actual
imposition of the punishment is intended. This is further made
difficult by the fact that criminal justice systems greatly differ
across the globe and many may not prescribe jail-time for traffickers
(for instance, some countries allow for conditional sentences for
trafficking crimes). Faced with these and other areas of legal and
factual ambiguity, the State Department has generally stated, as a
matter of policy that a trafficking-related crime should result in some
jail time.[Footnote 33] Otherwise, the punishment given would be
unlikely to deter.
Trafficking in Persons Report is Used to Prioritize Programs and Target
Resources. GAO criticizes a lack of linkage between programs and tier
ratings. The State Department agrees that there should be increased
coordination between the annual Report and international programs. G/
TIP is increasingly targeting funding to assist Tier 2 Watch List and
Tier 3 countries that express a willingness to work on improving their
response to human trafficking, or to NGOs in these countries that can
play a critical role in protection of victims or improving the law
enforcement response. The Department agrees that it is important to
support such activities when needed to strengthen anti-trafficking
efforts or establish pioneering or model anti-TIP programs, but this
may be true even if the country is placed in Tier 2 or in rare cases,
in Tier 1. However, linkage is not always possible. There are cases in
which the Department will note a deficiency in the TIP Report, but
there is no programmatic capacity to address the deficiency. The State
Department encourages resource-rich countries not qualified to receive
U.S. funding to fund their own anti-trafficking projects. Furthermore,
linkage is made more difficult by a grants award process that may take
up to several months.
Conclusion. The State Department, as previously noted, believes that
the GAO Report includes some useful recommendations that the Department
will explore integrating with ongoing efforts in light of available
resources.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter,
dated June 30, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. State agreed that more research would help in the fight against
human trafficking. State said that its Trafficking in Persons office
(G/TIP) continues to pursue better estimates of the scope of
trafficking; that the Senior Policy Operating Group (the Group) has
established a subcommittee on trafficking research to, among other
things, ensure regular interagency communication on research and close
the most important data gaps; that G/TIP plans to set aside a
substantial portion of its program budget for trafficking research; and
that G/TIP funds IOM's database. We recognize two ongoing projects to
develop better estimates of trafficking and note that it is too early
to assess the results of these projects. The Group subcommittee began
meeting within the past year and, at the time of our review, had not
established research priorities. During our review, G/TIP staff
expressed concern about the limited amount of funding available for
research, including continued funding for IOM's database, which G/TIP
partially funds.
2. State said that a better global estimate of the number of
trafficking victims should not be the primary focus of additional
research initiatives. State said a more valuable approach would be
information on the comparative severity of trafficking in particular
regions, countries, or localities; on the methods used by traffickers;
and the effectiveness of antitrafficking programs. We believe our
recommendation is consistent with State's comments. We agree that
additional research on these areas is valuable as discussed in the
report. We report that reliable and comparable country data do not
exist. We also report that U.S. agencies collect information on
traffickers and their victims but do not share their information or
analyze the information to identify trends and compile a profile of
victims. We also describe the value of IOM's database in providing
information on traffickers' routes and nationalities and the mechanisms
they use to identify and manipulate their victims. We also agree that
more information on the effectiveness of antitrafficking programs is
needed, and we note that little or no evidence is currently available
to indicate the extent to which different types of efforts impact the
level of trafficking. Our recommendation calls upon the Secretary of
State, in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Task Force to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, to consider assigning a
trafficking data and research unit but does not call for setting up a
new unit as State's comments suggest.
3. State agreed with the need for better performance measures, said
that the Group is looking at how to reconcile the different agency
grants processes so as to achieve an earlier exchange of information,
and said that State will address enhanced interagency coordination in
its upcoming G/TIP office strategy. State said that roles and
responsibilities of government agencies in combating trafficking in
persons have been established. We have clarified our recommendation to
state that agencies' roles and responsibilities should be delineated in
relation to each other, consistent with our report findings. State also
said that the Group creates an active forum where interagency
representatives work together to identify strengths and weaknesses of
of the Group's the U.S. approach to combat trafficking in real time.
State also said that the Attorney General's annual report and several
of the Group's subcommittees focus on improving efforts to combat
trafficking in persons. We reported findings from the Attorney
General's report. We also reported that the Group, through the work of
its various subcommittees, served as a forum for agency officials to
discuss trafficking policy and programs. However, based on information
from the other Group members, we believe that our report remains
accurate in also stating that the Group has not developed or
implemented a systematic way for agencies to identify priorities and
target efforts abroad to complement each others' activities to achieve
greater results than if the agencies were acting alone.
4. The Department of State agrees with our finding that its annual
Trafficking in Persons Report could provide more comprehensive and
clearer explanations for the tier ranking decisions. The Department of
State said that the 2006 report offers a greater and more consistent
examination of the minimum standards as they apply to each country. We
conducted a selective review of 26 tier 1 country narratives in the
2006 report and found that many of the concerns we cited in our report
remain. For example, none of the tier 1 country narratives clearly
explained how the government complied with the second minimum standard
established in the TVPA, which, among other things, calls for
governments to prescribe punishment for sex trafficking involving
force, fraud, or coercion that is commensurate with that for grave
crimes such as forcible sexual assault. Also, as in the 2005 report,
our review found that some tier 1 country narratives in the 2006 report
described governments' failure to comply with certain core criteria,
but the narratives did not explain how the governments' success in
meeting the other core criteria outweighed these deficiencies and
justified their placement in tier 1. We acknowledge in our report that
the Department of State is not legislatively mandated to include
country narratives in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report.
However, the 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report and reports from
previous years characterize the country narratives as "an assessment of
the government's compliance with the minimum standards — as laid out in
the TVPA of 2000, as amended." According to the report, the narratives
are also intended to explain the basis for the tier ranking decisions.
5. State said that under G/TIP's current guidelines to keep narratives
short, readable, and focused on deficiencies, the Trafficking in
Persons Report does not provide (and the law does not require) an
exhaustive examination of compliance with all of the minimum standards'
criteria. According to State, such an approach would create lengthy
country narratives that would lose their readability, effectiveness,
and policy relevance and would significantly increase the size of the
report. As described in our report, we did not assess whether the 2005
report's country narratives considered all 10 criteria for the fourth
minimum standard, and we do not criticize the Department of State for
failing to provide an exhaustive examination of governments' compliance
with all 10 of these criteria. Instead, our analysis focused on the
four minimum standards required by the TVPA; and for the fourth
standard, we looked only at whether the narratives explained
governments' compliance with the five core criteria identified by the
Trafficking Office. We believe these issues can be discussed while
maintaining a concise reporting format.
6. State said the TVPA requires the Trafficking in Persons Report to
include countries with a "significant number of victims of severe forms
of trafficking." As a matter of policy the minimum "significant number
of victims" has been defined as 100. As discussed in our report, our
interviews with State officials as well as our review of the 2005
report's country narratives indicated that some countries' inclusion in
the report was questionable. State acknowledges that many countries
have not analyzed their crime statistics through the prism of
trafficking in persons, making the available data unreliable.
7. State said the law does not clearly define what constitutes a
sufficient sentence to deter, or that adequately reflects the heinous
nature of the offense. The department has defined "sufficiently
stringent" punishment to mean time in jail, preferably at least several
years in jail. We recognize the subjectivity of the third minimum
standard in our report. Even though some narratives indicate that
countries prescribe jail time, State's report does not explicitly state
the department's definition that sufficiently stringent means some jail
time nor did some of the narratives state that the punishment was
sufficiently stringent. Thus, it is unclear how the government complied
with this minimum standard.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Thomas Melito (202) 512-9601 or m [Hyperlink, melitot@gao.gov]
elitot@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Cheryl Goodman, Assistant Director; Suzanne Dove; Christina Werth;
Gergana Danailova-Trainor; Bruce Kutnick; Barbara Stolz; and Patrick
Dickriede made key contributions to this report. In addition, Lynn
Cothern, Martin de Alteriis, Etana Finkler, and Mary Moutsos provided
technical or legal assistance.
(320374):
FOOTNOTES
[1] This amount includes over $150 million from the Department of
Labor, which was unable to break out funding amounts that specifically
addressed trafficking but include funding amounts for activities that
either have trafficking as a central focus, one component of a larger
project linked to trafficking, or as an issue within the overall
context of the project.
[2] We have also initiated a review of U.S. efforts to investigate and
prosecute trafficking in persons, and will soon begin a review of
multilateral organizations' antitrafficking efforts.
[3] The International Organization for Migration is a multilateral
organization that works with migrants and governments to respond to
migration challenges. The International Labor Organization is a United
Nations agency that promotes human and labor rights. UNODC assists
member states in fighting illicit drugs, crime, and terrorism.
[4] UNODC. Trafficking in Persons Global Patterns. (April 2006).
[5] Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development, the Director
of the United States Information Agency on "Steps to Combat Violence
against Women and Trafficking in Women and Girls" (Mar. 11, 1998).
[6] Pub. L. No. 106-386.
[7] TVPA 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-193) and TVPA 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-
164).
[8] The United States is also a signatory to the United Nations
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, G.A. res. 55/25,
annex II, 55 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 60, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (Vol. I)
(2001), which entered into force on December 25, 2003. The United
States ratified the protocol on December 3, 2005.
[9] Pub. L. No. 108-458.
[10] IOM's database was funded in part by State's Trafficking Office.
[11] The database is primarily a social service and protection case
management tool.
[12] Because of concerns with the reliability and credibility of
aggregate data, ILO chose not to use such data in developing its global
trafficking estimate.
[13] 2004 Trafficking in Persons Report, Department of State.
[14] Adult aliens are eligible for certification; victims under age 18
do not need to be certified to receive benefits. To be certified, the
alien must be willing to assist law enforcement in the investigation
and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking. Also, the alien's
presence in the United States must be required to ensure prosecution of
traffickers in persons or the alien must have made application for a T
visa.
[15] As reported in a USAID report.
[16] Pub. L. No. 108-458. The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center is
a joint State, DHS, and Justice operation.
[17] GAO, Results-oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[18] The working group was first established as the Senior Policy
Advisory Group in 2002, according to the Department of State, and
became the Senior Policy Operating Group as mandated in TVPA 2003.
[19] National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 22, signed on
December 16, 2002.
[20] We identified six desirable characteristics to include in a
national strategy: (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; (2) problem
definition and risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate objectives,
activities, and performance measures; (4) resources, investments, and
risk management; (5) organizational roles, responsibilities, and
coordination; and (6) integration and implementation. See GAO,
Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National
Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3,
2004), and Prescription Drugs: Strategic Framework Would Promote
Accountability and Enhance Efforts to Enforce the Prohibitions on
Personal Importation, GAO-05-372 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2005).
[21] GAO-04-408T.
[22] The TVPA 2003 added the provision that no funds made available to
carry out the TVPA as amended may be used to promote, support, or
advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution. In addition, no
funds made available to carry out the TVPA, as amended, may be used to
implement any program that targets victims of severe forms of
trafficking through any organization that has not stated in a grant
application or agreement that it does not promote, support, or advocate
the legalization or practice of prostitution. National Security
Presidential Directive 22, signed on December 16, 2002, states that
U.S. policy opposes prostitution and prostitution-related activities,
such as pimping, pandering, or maintaining brothels, as contributing to
the phenomenon of trafficking in persons. The U.S. government's
position is that these activities should not be regulated as a
legitimate form of work for any human being.
[23] In previous work, we broadly defined collaboration as any joint
activity intended to produce more public value than could be produced
when the organizations act alone. GAO-06-15.
[24] In previous work on desirable characteristics of a national
strategy, we have found that identifying priorities, milestones, and
performance measures, usually developed in conjunction with a strategic
framework, can help agencies achieve results, and enable more effective
oversight and accountability. See GAO-04-408T.
[25] GAO-06-15.
[26] The study concluded that a country's legal position on
prostitution was not the only factor that influences the number of
women and children trafficked for sexual exploitation and that a final
evaluation of the legislative model and the impact on the number of
victims should be based on a wider, more reliable and comparable set of
data. Transcrime, Study on National Legislation on Prostitution and the
Trafficking in Women and Children, a report prepared for the European
Parliament, August 2005.
[27] The fourth standard provides 10 indicia that can be used to assess
these efforts. According to the Trafficking Office, it focuses on 5 of
the 10 as core criteria: (1) prosecution of traffickers, (2)
prosecution of corrupt government officials who contribute to
trafficking, (3) protection of victims, (4) prevention of trafficking,
and (5) demonstrated progress in combating trafficking from year to
year (see app. IV).
[28] In 2001, we assessed whether the Treasury Department was able to
influence operations at the International Monetary Fund (Fund) in a
direction that would be consistent with U.S. policies. We found that it
was difficult to attribute Fund operations to any one member because
the Fund generally operates on a consensus decision-making basis. GAO,
International Monetary Fund: Efforts to Advance U.S. Policies at the
Fund, GAO-01-214 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2001).
[29] In 2003, the President decided to impose full sanctions on Burma,
Cuba, and North Korea and partial sanctions on Liberia and Sudan. In
2004, full sanctions were again imposed on Burma, Cuba, and North Korea
and partial sanctions on Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, and Venezuela. In
2005, full sanctions were imposed on Burma, Cuba, and North Korea and
partial sanctions on Cambodia and Venezuela.
[30] The threshold of 100 victims is not legislatively mandated.
[31] Our finding that 92 percent of tier 2 narratives did not mention
compliance with certain standards and criteria is based on a random
probability sample and is surrounded by a 95 percent confidence
interval that extends from 82 percent to 95 percent.
[32] Belser, Patrick, de Cock, Michaelle and Ferhad Mehran, ILO Minimum
Estimate of Forced Labor in the World, ILO (Geneva: April 2005); UNODC,
Trafficking in Persons Global Patterns, (Vienna: April 2006); and IOM,
Data and Research on Human Trafficking: A Global Survey (Geneva: 2005).
[33] The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized
Crime, which is supplemented by the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, defines
"serious crime" as "conduct constituting an offense punishable by a
maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years or a more serious
penalty."
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
