14th May 2024 – A new report by After Exploitation outlines the UK’s failure to collect and publish vital data on modern slavery, including details of how many survivors can access help.
DATA GAPS
‘A can of worms’: Challenges and opportunities in modern slavery evidence gathering outlines the UK Government’s persistent failure to release figures on slavery survivors’ access to safe housing, counselling, or even the imprisonment of survivors, despite indications that this data is already held. Meanwhile, evidence capable of guiding preventative action against exploitation, such as data on the industries or visa types most commonly linked to human trafficking, are not consistently tracked by Government officials.
“It’s such a huge proportion of people who just never make it into support. What is happening to those people?”
“There should be better information about why survivors are turned away [from safe housing], because often the reasons given are not valid.”
“When I was a caseworker, I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had to threaten legal action before they would accept [a survivor] into support when they were absolutely entitled to it.”
Primarily, practitioners were concerned by a lack of access to data on survivors’ access to entitlements and support (n=41), followed by data on immigration and enforcement (n=35); policy monitoring and transparency (n=33), NRM recording (n=32), prevention (n=28) and criminal justice (n=21).
The report also documents the human impact of poor data gathering, and the role it plays in hindering advocacy. Interviewees shared examples of planned projects, reporting or litigation which had to be reworked, or abandoned entirely, due to a lack of available evidence. This included work on topics such as survivors’ access to safe housing, the criminalisation of young victims, homelessness, and survivors’ health outcomes. Some journalists told of having to drop reports on individual survivors’ stories in the absence of national statistics.
Meanwhile, experts with lived experience of modern slavery explained that it is hard for them to access data about themselves, and information was poorly recorded when they were referred to the Home Office’s ‘National Referral Mechanism’. Three of the five experts with lived experience contributing to the report could not pinpoint when their support had come to an end, due to a lack of communication from the Home Office or charity providers.
TRANSPARENCY
The report also outlines significant transparency issues plaguing those who rely on modern slavery evidence for their day-to-day work. Many used channels including Parliamentay Questions (PQs) or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, but faced both self-imposed barriers and practical challenges with the processes.
“It’s serendipity, isn’t it? If you get the right MP at the right time and it’s an interest area…and they are on an advisory group… and a constituent approaches them… and if the stars and moons align, then yes [it’s helpful]. Otherwise, no.”
“Sending an FOI is like opening a can of worms”
- 74% of practitioners who tried working with an MP to secure modern slavery evidence through Parliamentary Questions (PQs) saw questions ‘entirely evaded’ (n=17)
- Half of those who submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests about modern slavery to public authorities found that responses were late (n=16) or never arrived at all (n=4).
In some cases, practitioners claimed that they had been informed data was not held, when in Government meetings or as part of FOI responses, but it would later transpire that the information was collected.
“We know they [Home Office] have the number of public order disqualifications [survivors banned from support] on the UK Data Service, but we’ve also seen FOIs get refused that information.”
Other times, practitioners said they were concerned by the alleged political motivation behind refusals to share data.
“A colleague shared that she was chasing up an FOI request with a data person at the Home Office directly. He said he was just ‘waiting around for sign-off from a media manager’”
PUBLIC DATA
Where data is published, such as in the Home Office’s quarterly National Referral Mechanism (NRM) statistics, practitioners highlighted challenges. Whilst these statistics were of use to practitioners, with 70% of respondents using them, issues with the NRM statistics were heightened by the absence of any other datasets on outcomes. Practitioners often referred to the quarterly NRM statistics as “the” modern slavery statistics, in the absence of any other offering.
Interviewees highlighted the NRM data is not machine-readable (n=9), lacked detail (n=7), and was potentially inaccurate as totals “do not always add up” (n=4) or because the data was inaccurately summarised in their view (n=6).
“It can take an enormous amount of manual data wrangling to get it into a structure that you can use, for instance, if I ever want to sort of see a breakdown geographically and by [nationality]”
The framing of ad hoc releases and statistics worried practitioners. More than half of all practitioners (n=27) raised their belief that the Home Office’s unevidenced claim of ‘abuse of the modern slavery system’ constituted misinformation constituted ‘misinformation’. Many felt ‘misleading’ ad hoc press and data releases, or NRM summaries which changed ‘key issues’ depending on political expedience, undermined the quality of the department’s data.
“Smaller newsrooms are under pressure from editors for quick turnarounds. ‘Churnalism’ is a genuine phenomenon. And that’s why it’s so important that politicians don’t put out misinformation… A lot of journalists out there will literally take, verbatim, the content sent to them and put it up on a website.”
The shortcomings were felt disproportionately as, in the words of one practitioner, the NRM data “is all we have”.
About the report
‘A can of worms: Challenges and opportunities in gathering modern slavery evidence’ is authored by non-profit After Exploitation, drawing on the interviews and written submissions of 50 practitioners across law, academia, the press and charity sectors, coupled with contributions from a panel of experts with lived experience of modern slavery who offered their views for this report.
The report calls for survivors to have consistent access to their own data, and for public authorities to adopt greater transparency around the support, criminal justice, and immigration outcomes of people who have been exploited.
Director of After Exploitation, Maya Esslemont, said:
“In the UK right now, there is virtually no way of reliably tracking whether the Government is meeting its legal and moral responsibility to disrupt exploitation and support survivors.
Whilst the Home Office releases some data on modern slavery referrals, there is a huge question mark over what happens after survivors come into contact with the authorities. Experts with lived experience have told us – again and again – that a lack of safe and secure housing, years-long waits for mental health support, and a dearth of advice on their rights, are commonplace. Yet the Government is failing to provide evidence on its performance in these areas.
Worryingly, we hear from practitioners including campaigners, researchers and legal professionals, who have essentially ‘given up’ asking for modern slavery data as they anticipate refusal via Freedom of Information (FOI) or other means. The impact of poor transparency is taking a toll on the quality of public debate on modern slavery, and even changing the way sectors advocate for survivors.”
With thanks
This report was supported by researcher Kimberley Hutchison, and made possible due to contributions from the panel of experts with lived experience (PELE) including modern slavery consultants Emily Vaughn and Syed Ahmed. We thank the Centre for Public Data, Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX), and Kalayaan for their input on policy and legal matters.
Most of all, our thanks to those who provided written evidence or participated as interviewees, including:
Anti-Slavery International,
Adavu,
Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit (ATLEU),
UK BME Anti Slavery Network (BASNET),
British Red Cross,
Children’s Society,
City of Sanctuary,
Duncan Lewis Solicitors,
English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP),
Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX),
Freedom United,
Free Movement,
Human Trafficking Foundation,
IMIX,
International Organisation of Migration (IOM),
Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) UK,
Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI),
Leigh Day Solicitors,
La Strada International,
Lighthouse Reports,
Liberty Investigates,
Medical Justice,
MEDACT,
Migrant Rights Network,
Modern Slavery Survivor Collective,
No Accommodation Network (NACCOM),
OpenDemocracy,
Open Rights Group,
RAMFEL,
Rainbow Migration,
RAMP,
Southwell and Partners,
Stop and Prevent Adolescent Criminal Exploitation (SPACE),
Unseen,
VITA Network,
Women for Refugee Women,
Work Rights Centre
Contributing individuals
Prof. Rosemary Broad,
Dr Ella Parry-Davies,
Prof. David Gadd,
Sascha Lavin,
Dr Hannah Lewis,
Sian Norris,
Dr Sian Oram,
Prof. Joel Quirk,
Matthew Reynolds,
Dr Natalie Sedacca,
Dr James Windle
After Exploitation 