Human Trafficking Assessments with IPV Survivors: Exploring Service Provider Perceptions

Background and Purpose:
Labor trafficking is an under-identified form of exploitation that often intersects with intimate partner violence (IPV). Traffickers are frequently intimate partners, yet IPV service providers may lack the knowledge, training, and tools to recognize and respond to labor trafficking within their client populations. Despite increasing recognition of this overlap, little is known about how IPV providers perceive and address labor trafficking. The purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, perceptions, and preparedness of IPV service providers in identifying and supporting labor trafficking survivors. The primary research question was: How do IPV service providers understand, assess, and intervene in cases of labor trafficking among the individuals they serve?

Methods:
This qualitative study employed a focus group design using an inductive content analysis approach. A total of 32 IPV service providers from four community-based organizations in the southwestern United States participated. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling to ensure diversity across roles and organizations. Four focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured, 14-item interview guide. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic coding to identify recurring patterns and insights related to service provider experiences and perceptions.

Results:
Four key themes emerged from the data:

1. Skills and Resources for Supporting Survivors – Providers reported varied levels of preparedness, with one group rating their training as 8/10 due to strong partnerships, while others rated their preparedness as low as 2/10, citing a lack of awareness and confidence in addressing labor trafficking.

2. Education and Training – Most providers had received general IPV training but lacked formal education on labor trafficking. Hands-on experience and field-based learning were perceived as more effective than academic preparation.

3. Community Engagement and Advocacy – Providers emphasized the importance of life skills training, workforce development, and empowering survivors. However, gaps in legal knowledge and inconsistent access to external resources limited support.

4. Cultural Needs for Victims – Language barriers, cultural norms, and immigration status significantly impacted survivors’ willingness to seek help. Providers stressed the need for culturally tailored interventions and greater understanding of how trafficking manifests across different communities.

Across all themes, participants noted the lack of standardized screening tools and protocols to identify labor trafficking, often relying on indirect cues during IPV-focused intake assessments.

Conclusions and Implications:
Findings suggest that while IPV service providers possess critical skills in trauma-informed care and survivor support, they are underprepared to address labor trafficking without targeted training and resources. There is a clear need for integrated labor trafficking education within IPV frameworks, culturally responsive care models, and formalized cross-sector collaborations. Enhancing provider capacity through workforce training, improved screening tools, and access to culturally and legally relevant resources could significantly improve identification and support of labor trafficking survivors. Future research should include survivor perspectives and assess the effectiveness of tailored training programs and advocacy strategies to ensure comprehensive, survivor-centered care in both IPV and labor trafficking contexts.