This blog post was written by Clinic students Alvin Yu and Brittney Rezaei
At the SCU International Human Rights Clinic, law students have the unique opportunity to work on important human rights projects affecting real people and policy. Within the first month of the Fall 2014 semester, two students submitted a report to the United Nations on the issue of human trafficking in the United States.
On September 15th, the Clinic submitted a stakeholder report to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). The UN Human Rights Council (HRC) created the UPR to regularly evaluate every country’s compliance with its human rights obligations and commitments. This is a unique process where UN Member States have the opportunity to make recommendations on how to improve the human rights situation in the State under review and the State can accept or reject the recommendations. Each State undergoes a review every four years. The HRC held its first review of the United States in 2010, and the results can be found here. The United States is up for its second review in May 2015.
The UPR gives civil society groups (i.e. NGOs, community organizations, non-profits, etc.) a platform to submit stakeholder reports before an interactive dialogue between States takes place. Although civil society cannot participate directly in the UPR process, groups can use stakeholder reports to inform the Council of their views. Stakeholder reports are fact-based documents reporting on specific aspects of the reviewed State’s compliance with international human rights norms for the Human Rights Council’s consideration. The Council can use the information provided in stakeholder reports to formulate questions and recommendations for the State under review; they provide an important way for civil society to make sure that important issues do not get ignored.
The UPR provides a mechanism for the international community to report on and conduct a dialogue on human rights issues in every State. It is especially important for U.S. human rights advocates because it is one of the few international human rights processes available for evaluating the United States. Participation in the UPR process is a valuable mechanism for U.S. civil society groups to push for improvements in the human rights situation here at home.
Clinic’s Report Focuses on Gaps in the U.S. Response to Human Trafficking
As part of the Clinic’s ongoing focus on the issue of human trafficking in the U.S., the Clinic submitted a stakeholder report on this issue to the Universal Periodic Review. The Clinic’s extensive research on efforts to combat human trafficking in the United States provided the basis for the stakeholder report. Over the past two years, the Clinic has investigated anti-trafficking work taking place here in the Bay area, primarily by interviewing federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, victim services providers, and legal aid providers who work with human trafficking victims. Clinic students who conducted this research in previous semesters gained invaluable interviewing experience and were able to use the information gathered to identify several troubling gaps in the U.S. response to human trafficking.
Based on these findings, the Clinic focused its submission on three significant gaps in the U.S. response to human trafficking, specifically: U.S. failure to 1) adequately identify and investigate labor trafficking cases; 2) address the intersection between the child welfare system and human trafficking; and 3) provide coordination and promote collaboration between local, state, and federal agencies to combat human trafficking. The Clinic used the report to highlight these three main issues of concern, provide first-hand information, and identify recommendations. Here is a brief summary of the main concerns covered in the report.
- Failure to Identify and Investigate Labor Trafficking Cases
Part One of the submission focused on the United States’ failure to take sufficient measures to identify and investigate labor trafficking cases. The Clinic provided the Council with information on the growing concern that, despite the fact that labor trafficking is likely more prevalent than sex trafficking, federal investigations and prosecutions focus disproportionately on sex trafficking cases over those involving labor trafficking.[1] The report also identified weaknesses in U.S. labor laws that make domestic workers, agricultural workers, and migrant workers particularly vulnerable to forced labor.[2] A recent “federally-funded report found that 30 percent of migrant laborers surveyed . . . were victims of labor trafficking and 55 percent were victims of labor abuse.”[3] The Clinic wrapped up the section on labor trafficking by recommending that the U.S. close these gaps in its labor laws to protect vulnerable groups of workers and take measures to improve identification and investigation of labor trafficking cases.
- Failure to Address the Intersection between Human Trafficking and the Child Welfare System
Part Two of the submission addressed the inadequate response of the U.S. to the vulnerability of children in the child welfare system to human trafficking. Recent data demonstrates that child trafficking victims are very likely to have some interaction with the child welfare system, yet the U.S. is not taking sufficient steps to address this connection. Nearly 300,000 children are at risk of becoming sex trafficking victims each year, and foster youth are especially vulnerable.[4] Moreover, the child welfare system lacks resources to meet the needs of child trafficking survivors placed in the system,[5] leaving these children vulnerable to being re-trafficked[6] and creating a revolving door effect. Finally, LGBTQ youth, who comprise 40% of the runaway and homeless youth population,[7] are up to five times more likely to be trafficked.[8] Although Congress has considered this problem, it has failed to pass any laws that would remedy the situation. Our report recommends that the U.S. develop and undertake immediate measures to ensure that the child welfare system has the mandate, resources, and training necessary to screen, identify, track, and provide appropriate services to trafficking victims, as well as to protect vulnerable children from trafficking.
- Failure to Provide Adequate Local, State, and Federal Coordination, Funding, and Training
Part Three wrapped up the submission by addressing the lack of adequate local, state, and federal coordination, funding, and training by the U.S. government. This failure to coordinate reduces the effectiveness of U.S. responses to human trafficking.[9] Lack of funding is also a major barrier to eradicating trafficking and serving victims. As of 2011, U.S. government grants funded only 39 local anti-trafficking task forces nationwide, or less than one task force per state.[10] The Clinic recommends that the U.S. address these problems as well as the need for standardized human trafficking training for all agencies that come into contact with potential trafficking victims.[11]
If you would like to see the specific recommendations made by the Clinic on each of these three substantive issues, please read the full report.
What’s Next for the Clinic?
With the support of the U.S. Human Rights Network, we coordinated with many other human rights groups that also submitted stakeholder reports on a range of important human rights issues. Now that we have submitted our report, we will work with the Network to bring these gaps to the government’s attention by lobbying other States to address the issue in their recommendations during the UPR. Next semester, the Clinic may travel to Geneva, Switzerland during the UPR to address the issue of human trafficking with delegates who participate in the U.S. review. Based on our advocacy efforts, we hope that the Council will open up a dialogue with the U.S. on the points we raised in our report and issue concrete recommendations to address these gaps in the U.S. response to human trafficking.
While this report was aimed at the UPR process, it is just one piece of the work that the Clinic and the broader Santa Clara University community continues to do to combat human trafficking here in the U.S. Through our comments on the Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking, the Clinic has worked to influence the Obama administration’s approach to this issue, and we also submitted a similar report to the UN Human Rights Committee when the U.S. was under review last year.
We would like to particularly thank our local human trafficking experts, Professors Lynette Parker and Ruth Silver-Taube from the Katharine and George Alexander Community Law Center, both of whom work constantly to serve human trafficking survivors here in the Bay area. Their expertise and insight on human trafficking assisted the Clinic to develop the key points raised in our stakeholder report.
If you are interested in this or other human rights issues, consider signing up for the Clinic next semester! We will continue to advocate for adoption of recommendations in our stakeholder report and for an improved response to human trafficking in the United States. The International Human Rights Clinic provides a great opportunity for law students to gain practical experience and be on the front lines of human rights advocacy while in law school. If you have any questions regarding the Clinic’s projects or how to get involved, please contact Professor Francisco Rivera (fjrivera@scu.edu) or Britton Schwartz (bschwartz@scu.edu).
[1] U.S. Dep’t of State, Traffcking in Persons Report, 398 (2014) [hereinafter TIP Report 2014], available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/226849.pdf (noting that in 2013, the Department of Justice “convicted a total of 174 traffickers . . . where 113 were predominantly sex trafficking and 25 were predominantly labor trafficking, although several involved both.”); U.S. Dep’t of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 360 (2012) [hereinafter TIP Report 2012], available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/192598.pdf (noting that “federal and state human trafficking data indicate more investigations and prosecutions have taken place for sex trafficking than labor trafficking.”); see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General’s Annual Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Fiscal Year 2011, 34, 65 (2013) [hereinafter Attorney General’s Report 2011], available at http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/annualreports/agreporthumantrafficking2011.pdf.
[2] American Civil Liberties Union, United States’ Compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, American Civil Liberties Union Shadow Report to the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States, 18 (Sept. 13, 2013), available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CCPR_NGO_USA_15353_E.pdf [hereinafter ACLU Shadow Report].
[3] TIP REPORT 2014 at 402, supra note 22.
[4] Press Release, U.S. Representative Karen Bass, 37th Congressional District, Statement on Legislation to Combat Youth Trafficking (Apr. 26, 2013) (on file with author), available at http://bass.house.gov/press-release/statement-legislation-combat-youth-street-trafficking (citing U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Juvenile Justice Bulletin 1, (July 2010), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228631.pdf).
[5] IHRC Interviews with Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Officials, Victim Services Providers, and Legal Aid Providers who Work with Human Trafficking Victims, Names Redacted (2012-2014) (on file with author) [hereinafter IHRC Interviews]. California Child Welfare Council, Ending the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children: A Call for Multi-System Collaboration in California, iii, 3-4, 10-11 (February 2013) [hereinafter CA Child Welfare Council Report], available at http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/Ending-CSEC-A-Call-for-Multi-System_Collaboration-in-CA.pdf
[6] U.S. Dep’t of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 385 (2013), available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210742.pdf; Loyola University Chicago, Center for the Human Rights of Children, Building Child Welfare Response to Child Trafficking, 12 (2011) [hereinafter Loyola Report], available at http://www.luc.edu/chrc/pdfs/Building_Child_Welfare_Response_to_Child_Trafficking.pdf.
[7] Durso, L.E., & Gates, G.J., Serving Our Youth: Findings from a National Survey of Service Providers Working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth who are Homeless or At Risk of Becoming Homeless, 3 (2012) Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund, available at http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Durso-Gates-LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-July-2012.pdf; see also U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Quick Facts, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/quick-fact?page=4.
[8] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) Guidance to States and Services on Addressing Human Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States, 5 (September 13, 2013), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/endtrafficking/trafficking/guidance.
[9] For further commentary on the lack of reliable human trafficking data in the U.S., see Maureen Q. McGough, Ending Modern-Day Slavery: Using Research to Inform U.S. Anti-Trafficking Efforts, National Institute of Justice Journal, Issue No. 271 (February 2013) [hereinafter NIJ Report], available at http://www.nij.gov/journals/271/pages/anti-human-trafficking.aspx.
[10] U.S. Dep’t of State, Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America to the U.N. Comm. on Human Rights Concerning the Int’l Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ¶ 202 (Dec. 30, 2011); see also Bureau of Justice Assistance, Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Initiative, available at https://www.bja.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program_ID=51.
[11] CA Child Welfare Council Report at 57, supra note 4.
