Identifying High-Priority Needs to Improve the Measurement and Application of Human Trafficking Prevalence Estimates

By Rebecca Pfeffer, Melissa M. Labriola, Lynn Langton, Duren Banks, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Human trafficking is a complex and nuanced social problem that continues to be difficult to combat in the United States and around the world. The lack of understanding of how many people experience trafficking is a pervasive issue with implications for resource allocation, policy response, and intervention programming. Over the years, there have been many attempts to determine the prevalence of trafficking; however, the hidden nature of such exploitation continues to be problematic. Measuring the prevalence of trafficking may have utility for practitioners and other key stakeholders who are assessing the level of need and resources necessary to engage in outreach, prevention, and intervention with suspected or identified victims. However, there is neither a clearly defined set of indicators that have utility for measuring prevalence nor a standard practice for using prevalence studies to fill information gaps that can improve service provision. This report presents findings and recommendations from an expert workshop that focused on the type and level of information (national, state, local) related to the prevalence and characteristics of trafficking that are most useful for practitioners working with trafficking survivors. The workshop culminated in the creation of a prioritized list of the key gaps in understanding the scope of labor and sex trafficking, solutions to begin to fill those gaps, and key indicators that should be considered as part of a broader effort to better classify types of trafficking.

Key Findings

• There is a lack of consensus on indicators and definitions of trafficking.

• Prevalence estimates are aggregate; disaggregation is important for better understanding risk (e.g., to inform instrument and sample design).

• There is limited focus on how prevalence estimates can be used to assess the effectiveness of various interventions and preventions.

• Prevalence is measured without any discussion of what to do with those estimates or how to use them to better serve people who experience trafficking.

• Different industries, populations, political landscapes, and forms of exploitation require different methodologies for estimating prevalence.

• Implicit bias is a problem for reporting, identification, recruiting, data collection, and service provision (e.g., some practitioners know to look for white female victims only).

Recommendations

• Establish and validate a standard set of indicators and then apply those indicators to legal definitions of trafficking.

• Create a guide with best practices on instrument design, sampling approaches, testing, open data, and dissemination practices to allow for appropriate disaggregation (while protecting privacy).

• Encourage funders and researchers to gather information during the prevalence stage that can be applied to programs, interventions, and subsequent effectiveness assessments.

• Recommend that research funders and researchers use, at a minimum, a co-creation model, but, ideally, they should use a rigorous community-based participatory action research approach.

• Establish, design, and co-create the research design and implementation with researchers and the affected community (including those with lived experience).

• Ensure that prevalence research includes underrepresented subpopulations by using designs that employ community-based approaches that will identify diverse perspectives in communities.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2024. 20p.