Slave Next Door (43 page)

F L U N K I N G H U M A N T R A F F I C K I N G 1 0 1

All of this points up the absence of—and need for—accurate documen-

tation. In a recent study, Anthony Shorris, of Princeton’s Policy Research

Institute for the Region, said, “There is very little [research] work done

on trafficking, and much of the research that does exist is focused on one

element of the problem: the need for more and better data.”38 The Center

for Women Policy Studies has answered this need by creating a compre-

hensive evaluation of each state and its trafficking laws. They call it a

“Report Card on State Action to Combat International Trafficking,” and

it is just that—an old-fashioned report card, complete with letter grades

for a variety of categories and explanations to go with them.39

The center has worked on human trafficking on the state level since

1998 and frequently consults with the various state legislatures. It is pri-

marily concerned with how the states’ antitrafficking efforts affect

women and girls, and this is reflected in some of the survey’s categories.

They do not, however, subscribe to the antiprostitution school of

thought. According to the center’s president, Leslie Wolfe, “Our work is

about human rights, not antiprostitution. It’s about what public policy

can do to end the oppression of women.”40 Despite its gender emphasis,

the center’s report card is comprehensive enough to evaluate each state’s

legislative overall response to trafficking. It covers five areas: criminal-

ization of trafficking; victim protection and assistance; creation of

statewide interagency task forces; regulation of international marriage

brokers; and regulation of travel service providers who facilitate sex

tourism. All fifty states were surveyed. Their report from early 2007,

when only half the states had passed felony trafficking legislation, pro-

vides an overall—and sobering—picture of the trend in state-level traf-

ficking legislation. As for the grades, on the whole, there are very few

As—you can count them on two hands—and an alarming number of Fs,

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 204

2 0 4 / T H E F I N A L E M A N C I PAT I O N

indicating that the state in question has made no effort to date in a par-

ticular category. An F in the “Criminalization of Trafficking” column,

for instance, would mean that that particular state had not yet passed a

trafficking law. A student receiving such a report card would have to

repeat the school year.41

Under the “Criminalization of Trafficking” section of the report card,

the areas surveyed included an impressive list of criteria on which the

states were evaluated.42 In this category, no state received an A, and

those with a B grade—including such states as Iowa, California, Illinois,

and New Jersey—are all seen, in one way or another, as lacking. In the

case of California, the center recommends that it revise the provisions

to “include a definition of ‘forced sexual exploitation’ that criminalizes

all forms of sex trafficking, not just ‘prostitution.’”43 Illinois is advised

to add “corporate liability for traffickers, and mandatory training for

local and state law enforcement.”44

The “Victim Protection and Assistance” section of the report card

survey defines appropriate care and services for survivors: access to safe

and secure housing; protection of victims from intimidation, threats,

and reprisals; competent physical and mental health care; legal and

immigration assistance; translation services; educational and job readi-

ness programs; policies and procedures to provide access to services;

and the right of private action. Under this category, fourteen of the states

that have trafficking laws in place received an F, while six more earned

a D, indicating that the majority of states have done little or nothing to

provide help or services for the victim. Again, no state got an A, and

only three—California, Indiana, and Illinois—got Bs. The center com-

mends California for “its exceptional efforts to provide social services

to victims of trafficking” but goes on to recommend that it provide

“other forms of assistance,” such as safe housing, health services and

trauma counseling, immigration and legal assistance, and translation

services. One victim service provision in the California law has rankled

law enforcement agencies from the local level all the way up to the DOJ.

The statute stipulates that “within 15 days of first encountering a traf-

ficking victim, law enforcement agencies must complete and submit the

Law Enforcement Agency Endorsement (LEA) documents. If the LEA

Endorsement is found to be ‘inappropriate,’ the law enforcement agency,

within 15 days, must provide the victim with a letter explaining why it

was denied.”45 Says one high-ranking official at the DOJ (who asked to

remain anonymous), “Law enforcement thinks this a bad provision; it’s

inflexible and makes fixed schedules of reporting for continued presence

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 205

S TAT E S O F C O N F U S I O N / 2 0 5

and the like. Victim services are important, but it’s not law enforce-

ment’s primary objective; the main thing detectives should be doing is,

they should be out there being detectives.”

Two of the report card’s categories, “Regulation of International

Marriage Brokers (IMBs)” and “Regulation of Travel Service Providers”

for sex tourism, are almost exclusively women’s issues, and they show a

nearly unbroken field of Fs, with only the occasional passing grade. Only

four states had enacted laws against marriage brokering, with Texas get-

ting the only A, while Missouri, Hawaii, and Washington got As for their

work in legislating against sex tourism–based travel services.46

Under the final category in the survey—“Creation of Statewide

Interagency Task Forces”—seven states received top marks: California,

Colorado, Hawaii, Connecticut, Idaho, Washington, and Maine. This

can be misleading at first, since at the time of the study neither Maine

nor Hawaii had a trafficking law in place. But in the center’s estimation,

the existence of a thoughtfully constructed, forward-moving task force

in both states speaks well for a considered approach being taken toward

passing one.47

T H E I M P O R TA N C E O F S TAT E W I D E I N T E R A G E N C Y

TA S K F O R C E S

Both the Freedom Network’s and Polaris Project’s model statutes advo-

cate for the creation of interagency statewide task forces—with a broad

membership base drawn from both government and NGOs. Center

president Leslie Wolfe has strong opinions in favor of the task forces.

“Some states aren’t ready to pass a trafficking law yet, some aren’t famil-

iar with the issues, and some are studying the issues, or have passed

statewide task force laws.”48 For all the states—those with and without

a trafficking statute—she believes that a state legislature–approved inter-

agency task force is the key to a successful war on human trafficking.

The establishment and membership of the statewide task force are man-

dated by the state legislature, and the task force is most effective when

composed of a broad spectrum of involved professionals: victim service

providers and advocates; researchers; human rights, immigration rights,

and domestic violence services; and members of state and local law

enforcement and government. The most vital functions they can provide

are to research and ascertain the types and extent of trafficking within

their respective states, develop state human trafficking response plans,

review existing services, and establish policies.

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 206

2 0 6 / T H E F I N A L E M A N C I PAT I O N

Wolfe sees Connecticut’s statewide task force as the model for other

states. It is the creation of Democratic state senator Andrea Stillman,

who brought the various members together and remains actively

involved. However, since each state faces its own specific set of prob-

lems regarding human trafficking, it is unrealistic to expect that the task

forces should adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Idaho has a “small-

ish” task force, says Wolfe, when compared to that of Connecticut, “but

both have the same mission.” Washington, one of the first states to pass

a trafficking law, “keeps evolving, amending their task force, working to

improve victim protections. They’re the kind of state where the legisla-

tors are committed to doing the work.” Wolfe was not concerned that

Maine was one of the fourteen states that had no anti–human traffick-

ing statute by early 2008 because their statewide task force was, in her

opinion, providing a comprehensive study of the problem and recom-

mending the best possible way of addressing it.49

Just assembling a task force does not ensure success. In the wake of

the passage of their 2007 human trafficking statute, the New York State

Legislature passed a law mandating the creation of an interagency task

force. The specified members are the New York State Department of

Labor, the Division of State Police Office of Children and Family

Services, the Crime Victims Board, the Department of Health, the Office

of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, the Office of Mental

Health, and the Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. The

task force is co-chaired by the New York State Office of Temporary

Disability Assistance, to address victim services, and the New York State

Division of Criminal Justice Services, to deal with the legal end. There

are two subcommittees, to which have been added still more agencies.

Yet despite this impressive list of participants, their collective experience

in the area of human trafficking is minimal to none. The logical thing

would have been to include victim service providers in the task force, yet

not a single NGO is on the list. Although the task force has set up hear-

ings to get testimony from the NGOs (“asking NGOs to do their work

for them,” in the words of one service provider), they have essentially

denied a seat at the table to the people with real experience in the field.

The legislature wheeled out the heavy agency guns without providing

them with the ammunition they will need to understand the problem

and get the job done.

Letter grades aside, Leslie Wolfe is emboldened by the states’

response. “It is judgmental to say the laws are good or bad. Given that

the state legislators’ awareness of the issue began as recently as 1998,

Bales_Ch08 2/20/09 3:38 PM Page 207

S TAT E S O F C O N F U S I O N / 2 0 7

I’m rather pleased with the progress made in so short a time.” In her

opinion, the report card is only a “snapshot in time,” helping to both

chronicle and provide incentive to the states’ efforts. The low grades,

Wolfe says, “encourage the various state governments who have done

something to do more, and those who have done nothing to do some-

thing.” She is currently working with the Arizona legislature to give

their law a much-needed facelift. “They have an awful law,” she admit-

ted, “and now they’re working on a better one.”50

Wolfe is more positive about state trafficking laws than Finckenauer

and Liu. She sees the various state legislatures much as a strict teacher

views her class. She applauds their efforts, knows they can do better,

and provides the tough love to motivate them to excel. “Some of these

legislators are real heroes,” she says. “I’ve watched them learn to see the

reality of trafficking in a human rights context rather than as a mission

to ‘end sin and promote law enforcement.’ And I’ve watched them take

on this issue as courageous and powerful spokespeople and policy lead-

ers. They’ve taken on something that their colleagues aren’t familiar

with, and don’t really care about, and they’ve gotten laws passed. None

of these state statutes is perfect—but then, what is?”51 Some, however,

would suggest that the relevance and comprehensiveness of the various

state laws are more at issue than the courage and inspiration it might

have taken to get them passed.

L O O K I N G F O R H E L P A M O N G T H E S TAT E S

One former member of the DOJ Programs Office (who requested

anonymity) commented that state victim services laws are “redundant

and inefficient. With the federal government funding victim services

through HHS and other agencies, the states should have no need to enact

their own victim-centered legislation as well.” Leslie Wolfe sees this as a

“typical federal bureaucratic response. I wouldn’t want to rely on only

federal money for victim services. It seems foolish to suggest the federal

government should stand alone in their responsibility to victims.”52

To what extent does the federal government look to the states for leg-

islative assistance in fighting human trafficking? According to Amy

Farrell, the TVPA was created in 2000 to “provide a legal structure for

prosecuting individuals engaged in human trafficking activities.” The

federal government, says Farrell, was never meant to go it alone. Despite