Developing Statewide Anti-Human Trafficking Capacity: A Qualitative Evaluation

Background and Purpose: Human trafficking is an increasing concern in North Carolina (NC) with labor and sex trafficking emerging as growing problems in rural and urban areas (Burke, 2013). In 2010, the Office for Victims of Crime awarded a grant to the North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NCCASA) to develop statewide, anti-human trafficking infrastructure and response capacities. In assessing NC’s anti-human trafficking capacity, NCCASA determined that the state lacked infrastructure to: (a) meet human trafficking victims’ needs; (b) train NC service providers who encounter victims in their work; and (c) increase public awareness. By forming a statewide taskforce, NCCASA led a 3-year effort to develop a coordinated human trafficking response and state-level service system. To evaluate these efforts, NCCASA collaborated with our research team to evaluate dynamic changes in NC’s anti-trafficking infrastructure.

Methods: For the evaluation, we chose qualitative methods because many aspects of human trafficking are so poorly understood that quantitative approaches would require untested assumptions. Thus, our research team used mid- and post-test qualitative research methods with key-informant participants to collect information about: (a) existing NC programs, protocols, and services; (b) NC programs, protocols, and services at the end of the project; and (c) statewide changes that occurred during the project.

Participant recruitment was conducted using purposive and snowball sampling. The five organizations that were part of NCCASA’s statewide taskforce were asked to identify members who were anti-human trafficking leaders in their respective organizations. The identified leaders were invited to participate and were also asked to invite other relevant members of their organization to participate, too.

In all, 14 anti-trafficking advocates and service providers representing all five taskforce organizations agreed to participate in either focus groups or interviews. Focus groups and interviews were conducted at two times about 12-months apart. Most participants (9 of 14; 64.3%) participated in both data collection points. Focus groups and interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. Transcripts were independently analyzed using Atlas.ti and an open-coding approach (Anastas, 2004; Padgett, 2008).

Findings:Overall, participants declared the project a success with important improvements in NC’s anti-human trafficking infrastructure. Qualitative analysis identified three key challenges: (a) communication, (b) aftercare services, and (c) criminal justice. Participants emphasized that improved interagency communication would result in better collaboration and consequently better victim services. Second, participants declared a pressing need for specialized services for victims, Specifically, participants asked for victim advocacy, case management, counseling, health care, and shelters. Finally, participants described the importance of coordinating efforts among all aspects of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, districts attorneys, and judges. Detailed information about findings will be presented with participant quotes regarding challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations.

Conclusions and Implications: To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to assess dynamic changes in statewide, anti-human trafficking infrastructure and response capacities. Accordingly, this research represents an exploratory yet valuable step toward determining best practices for addressing human trafficking in the U.S., including specific strategies for developing services in a semi-rural state.