The U.S. Government’s response to human trafficking over the past decade serves as an interesting case study for the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) because it presents a complex, multifaceted, and transnational challenge that does not fall neatly into the jurisdiction of any single executive branch organization. It involves nearly 30 offices in at least seven major U.S. Government (USG) departments and agencies, some of which have traditionally had more limited national security responsibilities. Addressing the trafficking problem requires an integrated government response, which thus far has been lacking.

STRATEGY:
To the extent that a U.S. strategy to combat trafficking in persons exists, it is rooted in the Clinton Administration’s 1998 International Crime Control Strategy (ICCS). The broad approach outlined in the ICCS is still commonly referenced today. More than a decade later, however, the document offers little in terms of practical guidance to the departments charged with developing multi-layered anti-trafficking strategies, plans, and processes. As a result, anti-trafficking strategies remain poorly integrated across the U.S. national security system. Individual agency strategies and plans still operate in general isolation. Coordinated, or at the minimum, compatible strategies exist only on an individual, and often ad-hoc, basis.

INTEGRATED ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER:
In recognition of the complexity presented by this national security challenge, various interagency mechanisms—including task forces, policy groups, and fusion centers—have been formed since human trafficking gained increased attention in the United States in the late 1990s. While these instruments have facilitated coordination to a degree, by providing forums for agencies to collaborate, their success has been severely inhibited by a lack of authority in areas such as funding, strategy development, and the designation of department and agency roles and responsibilities; all of which ultimately reside within home agencies.

EVALUATION:
In the absence of a national-level framework, department-level goals, strategies, plans, and processes are developed within the context of each individual agency’s broader mission. This process leads to poorly integrated anti-trafficking strategies since they are not based on any external or higher level guidance. Successful coordination across agencies, through either ad-hoc or formal mechanisms, occurs only on a case-by-case basis. Most commonly, U.S. policies in this area suffer from information-sharing challenges, interagency rivalries, and other obstacles that derive from the disparate perspectives on human trafficking that exist at the level of the individual departments.

RESULTS:
During the past decade, there has been significant improvement in the U.S. Government’s ability to address the challenge of human trafficking, but the magnitude of the problem continues to grow due to surging demand. An inability to devise and implement an integrated approach to anti-trafficking costs the nation valuable time and resources. Generally, the U.S. response to trafficking is reactive, with success dependent on individual cases and personal relationships. Disparate agency strategies and visions inhibit comprehensive assessments of and improvements in U.S. anti-trafficking initiatives. Insufficient clarity regarding USG roles and responsibilities for anti-trafficking efforts has led to confusion on the part of U.S. officials, host-nation counterparts, and trafficking victims alike.

CONCLUSION:
An integrated USG approach is needed to counter a threat as complex as human trafficking. An analysis of the USG response to this national security challenge over the past decade reveals a lack of an integrated strategy to guide implementation of a government-wide approach to combating trafficking. As a result, cross-agency coordination in executing department level strategies and plans is often ad-hoc. Several interagency mechanisms have been created to assist with coordination, but these processes are constrained by a lack of authorities in key areas. The result has been a primarily reactive USG response, with coordination depending heavily on the circumstances of individual cases, confusion over anti-trafficking roles and responsibilities, and an inability to effectively evaluate and improve on existing anti-trafficking programs.

---