Human Trafficking: Understanding What We Have and Where It Can Take Us

Abstract: WORD COUNT 488

Background: Human Trafficking is identified as one of the fastest growing criminal industries in the world, impacting an estimated 20.9 million victims and generating 150 billion dollars in profit annually (ILO, 2015). There is global recognition of the need to prevent, prosecute and protect (referred to as the 3Ps) those impacted and/or responsible for human trafficking (Traffic in Persons [TIP} Report, 2016). Despite the global magnitude of human trafficking, there are substantial gaps in “high-quality” research, and existing data suffers from questionable collection methods and reliability concerns (Weitzer, 2014). This creates challenges in identifying the severity of the problem, as well as difficulties documenting any appreciable impact from prevention, prosecution and protection efforts. Against the backdrop of these challenges, this study utilized the 2011 Human Trafficking Indicators (HTI) database (Frank, 2011) to explore the following questions:

1. Does the data support the TIP claim that a country’s Tier rank is based upon meeting a set of minimum standards?
2. Does the data support the country’s adherence to the minimum standards based upon a set of 10 additional variables categorized as prevention, prosecution and protection?

Methods: The HTI database was created from a content analysis of US Department of the State’s annual TIP reports from 2001 to 2011. In addition to providing an extensive narrative on each country’s efforts to address the 3Ps, the report ranks each country as follows: Tier 1 (fully met minimum standards), Tier 2 (do not fully met standards, but are making significant efforts), and Tier 3 (do not meet minimum standards and not making significant efforts). This current secondary data analysis examined relationships between tier rankings minimum standards and variables related to prevention, prosecution and protection specifically related to two forms of human trafficking – sex trafficking and labor trafficking.

Results: The analysis produced significant results for both research questions stated, confirming the claims made by the TIP report that in fact the tier ranking is largely contingent upon adherence to the minimum standards. Even though the second research question produced significant results, the findings were mixed, presenting a need for further exploration and understanding of the nuanced relationships between the 10 additional variables and the minimum standards. 

Implications: Despite ongoing criticism of the TIP report as being more political than human rights-oriented, this study suggests there is some degree of congruence between tier rankings and a country’s efforts to be responsive to the minimum standards for combating human trafficking. While the findings support some congruence between tier ranking and efforts to address human trafficking, the mixed results concerning prevention, prosecution and protection call for closer examination in order to best utilize the TIP report as a resource for the anti-human trafficking community. This research is the beginning of building a more reliable understanding of the relationships which exist in the data currently available for anti-human trafficking efforts and will serve as a catalyst for additional data collection and future research.