Optimizing Screening and Support Services for GBV and TIP Victims

The Asia Foundation, with support from the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (J/TIP) at the United States Department of State, conducted a multicountry qualitative research study to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of screening and service provision to victims of trafficking in persons (TIP) and gender-based violence (GBV) in diverse contexts. The study's primary objective is to identify promising practices and challenges in integrating or separating services for GBV and TIP victims in the three target countries of India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. GBV and TIP victims often suffer similar and intersecting forms of abuse, however, during the screening process these multiple vulnerabilities are often not identified, and hence care is delayed. This study is premised upon a deeper study of these intersections; their resultant impact on the identification of victims; leading to a concluding exploration of effective service delivery to the victims, and whether these stand in need of integration.

The research adopted a qualitative approach to data collection, with in-depth and structured interviews conducted with identified stakeholders including government and nongovernmental service providers, law enforcement officials, and victims of TIP and GBV. Focus group discussions were facilitated with some key stakeholders to supplement the key informant interviews (KII). The research sites in the three countries were chosen to capture the source, transit, and destination sites of trafficking. The data collection for this research was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic and thus had to be adapted to virtual platforms. However, interviews with victims were only conducted in person once mobility improved, to avoid retriggering their trauma. In a remote interview setting, this trauma would have been difficult to address, and support with resources and referrals.

The findings from the three-country studies indicate three directions for integration of services:

Resources for service delivery across the three countries are uncertain, uneven, and scarce. Additionally, different agencies are involved in service delivery. These agencies are spread out geographically, creating hurdles for victims in navigating the different service delivery centers. Thus, some interviewed stakeholders saw integration as a pragmatic way forward for optimum resource utilization and services to be pooled at a common location.

Another group of stakeholders recommended a hybrid service delivery model where some services could be integrated, such as legal, medical, and healthcare, psychosocial counseling, livelihood, and capacity development training (including skills training).

Some stakeholders maintained that services should be kept separate. The argument for separation was made on the grounds that the service needs of GBV and TIP victims are different, albeit with some commonalities. However, the risk of not being able to do justice to either group by integrating services has to be realistically considered.