Final Report of the Subcommittee on Domestic Trafficking

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NGO INPUT 2: Julianne Duncan, United States Conference <strong>of</strong> Catholic BishopsRemarks prepared for Senior Policy Operating Group on Trafficking in PersonsFebruary 9, 2005We are pleased to have an opportunity to address this group and <strong>of</strong>fer our thoughts onservices for trafficked persons in <strong>the</strong> United States.I am Julianne Duncan and speak for United States Conference <strong>of</strong> CatholicBishops/Migration and Refugee Services (USCCB/MRS). We are active on a policy andadvocacy level, provide and promote educational efforts and provide services to bothadult and child victims in a variety <strong>of</strong> ways. Our website (www.usccb.org) describes ourservices to trafficking victims which are funded by various governmental agencies anddonated funds. Additionally we are <strong>the</strong> convenors <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Coalition <strong>of</strong> CatholicOrganizations Against Human Trafficking which is comprised <strong>of</strong> Catholic more than 20organizations and religious orders with a focus on local, national and internationalaspects <strong>of</strong> trafficking. I have provided a brochure describing <strong>the</strong> coalition.As part <strong>of</strong> our efforts to assist <strong>the</strong> government to identify and serve both child and adultvictims, we have convened four national meetings to examine <strong>the</strong> issues particularly froma child perspective: How to identify and serve child victims <strong>of</strong> trafficking under <strong>the</strong>Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). This effort to secure safe and effectiveservices for international victims led us to a scrutiny <strong>of</strong> service systems for all children in<strong>the</strong> United States in similar circumstances to see which systems may be <strong>of</strong> help. I ammaking available <strong>the</strong> published articles based on those meetings. Representatives frommany <strong>of</strong> your agencies were present at <strong>the</strong> meetings as well as state governmentpersonnel, juvenile court judges, public defender associations, academics, child welfareproviders, child protective service systems, homeless/runaway youth shelter staff. It wasour goal to understand systems and agencies which could be available to assist child oryoung adult trafficking victims and what barriers children might face to accessingservices which are available in <strong>the</strong> United States.Our experience within MRS also includes services to immigrants and refugees whobecome legal permanent residents and citizens. Our services are <strong>of</strong>ten delivered throughCatholic Charities which provide a wide variety <strong>of</strong> services for <strong>the</strong> neediest members <strong>of</strong>our society.So our perspective on <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> services to trafficking victims is based on our directservices to international child and adult victims throughout <strong>the</strong> country; our directservices to refugees and o<strong>the</strong>r immigrants; our outreach to multiple providers <strong>of</strong> relatedservices to children in <strong>the</strong> U.S.; membership in <strong>the</strong> Catholic Coalition; and a familiaritywith some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> services provided to needy people through local Catholic Charities.You have asked us here to address <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> what disparity exists, if any, in actualdelivery <strong>of</strong> services in <strong>the</strong> United States to trafficked persons who are ei<strong>the</strong>r “domesticvictims” or “international victims.”62
With respect, we believe you are asking <strong>the</strong> wrong question.Trafficked persons are receiving services at an inappropriately low rate whatever <strong>the</strong>ircountry <strong>of</strong> origin. This appears to be <strong>the</strong> case despite what we see as outstanding effortand dedication on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> various government agencies to address <strong>the</strong> vexing problem<strong>of</strong> trafficking within our borders.The lamentably low rate <strong>of</strong> access to trafficking services for international victims is indirect proportion to <strong>the</strong> low rate <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial victim identification. When an internationalvictim is <strong>of</strong>ficially recognized as a victim and concurs with <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TVPA forcertification or eligibility, she receives services ra<strong>the</strong>r expeditiously and effectively. Infive years, however, we are discussing only about 1,200 people, including children andadults.If we accept <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> State estimates <strong>of</strong> numbers <strong>of</strong> people trafficked into <strong>the</strong>United States from foreign countries (between 14,000-17,500), most, <strong>the</strong>n, are notidentified or, even if identified, are frequently deported ra<strong>the</strong>r than provided services.This is shockingly <strong>the</strong> case even for children. While it is Americans who are patronizing<strong>the</strong> bro<strong>the</strong>ls, are pr<strong>of</strong>iting from forced labor or using slave-made goods, <strong>the</strong> traffickedpersons are too <strong>of</strong>ten not receiving <strong>the</strong> services outlined for <strong>the</strong>m by <strong>the</strong> TVPA. Too feware being rescued and restored.Americans who are similarly victimized (whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>ir victimization is calledtrafficking) are also sometimes not able to receive services; not because <strong>the</strong>y will beremoved from <strong>the</strong> country but because our social service systems are overburdened to <strong>the</strong>point that many, many people slip through <strong>the</strong> cracks.Thus we think that <strong>the</strong> correct question is <strong>the</strong> following: “What barriers preventtrafficking victims from our own or o<strong>the</strong>r countries from receiving needed protection andservices and what should/can we do to remove or lower those barriers?”Barriers to service—international victimsThe greatest barrier that we see to international victims receiving services is <strong>the</strong>reluctance <strong>of</strong> federal law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficials to request that victims have access toavailable services. In <strong>the</strong> immediacy <strong>of</strong> a raid or law enforcement action, victims do notfeel safe telling law enforcement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir true circumstances and law enforcementpersonnel do not have <strong>the</strong> time to dig deeply beyond <strong>the</strong>ir first answer. Thus, victims areremoved from <strong>the</strong> country before <strong>the</strong>y have an opportunity to understand <strong>the</strong>ir optionsand agree to assist in law enforcement activity. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> children, <strong>the</strong> additionalbarrier is <strong>the</strong> reluctance <strong>of</strong> HHS to <strong>of</strong>fer care absent a request from a federal lawenforcement <strong>of</strong>ficial.For international adult victims or children who receive services with <strong>the</strong>ir parents, oncea formal referral is made service systems are in place to respond. Adult and familieshave been victimized in:63
Page 1 and 2:
SENIOR POLICY OPERATINGGROUP ON TRA
Page 3 and 4:
MISSION, GOAL AND DEFINITIONSMissio
Page 5 and 6:
We recognized that the</str
Page 7 and 8:
PARTICIPATING AGENCIESDepartment <s
Page 9 and 10:
Summary of Service
Page 11 and 12:
2. For certain Federal means-tested
Page 13 and 14: Section III - Recommendations for R
Page 15 and 16: APPENDIX I: SERVICES AVAILABLE TO V
Page 17 and 18: II. International VictimsA. Interna
Page 19 and 20: Legal alien minor children (under 1
Page 21 and 22: II. International VictimsA. Interna
Page 23 and 24: A. International victims who are mi
Page 25 and 26: Department of Heal
Page 27 and 28: and unmarried dependent children. B
Page 35 and 36: financial resources for the
Page 39 and 40: Department of Hous
Page 41 and 42: The Federal Rule defines certain ty
Page 43 and 44: The Federal Rule defines certain ty
Page 45 and 46: Transportation to Receive Emergency
Page 47 and 48: With respect to minor victim/witnes
Page 49 and 50: The recently-enacted Justice for Al
Page 51 and 52: Prior to entering WITSEC, witnesses
Page 53 and 54: D. Domestic victims who are legal U
Page 55 and 56: Agency: Office for Victims
Page 57 and 58: National Electronic Tools: Used in
Page 59 and 60: The One-Stop Career Centers <strong
Page 61 and 62: APPENDIX II: INPUT FROM NON-GOVERNM
Page 63: Rachel LloydGirls Educational and M
Page 67 and 68: The Federally funded system <strong
Page 69 and 70: An example of a tr
Page 71 and 72: For international unaccompanied chi
Page 73 and 74: Below are some examples of<
Page 75 and 76: AB 22 establishes a California Anti
Page 77 and 78: • The strategy of</strong
Page 79 and 80: sexual exploitation and target <str
Page 81 and 82: Following are examples of</
Page 83 and 84: NGO INPUT 4: Input from a Limited N
Page 85 and 86: children for the p
Page 87: NGO Input 6: Recommendations from S
show all

Final Report of the Subcommittee on Domestic Trafficking

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?