Protection and assistance that is effective for one individual in one context does not work necessarily for all victims of trafficking. One challenge of the measurement of effective protection is to be able to map the range of predatory practices and demographics of potential victims and how protection and assistance could occur, both individually and systemically.
Prevention and vulnerability in the ETRR program was measured with a composite index of variables, the vulnerability index. A similar index could also be developed for this program – one which would attempt to measure indicators of successful reintegration. However, in this example, in order to present a different and a less costly approach, the evaluator will use a mixed-methods approach, in which three quantitative measures of program success will be supported by qualitative indicators of program performance. Once again, these indicators are but a few of many that can be developed.
1. VoTs Identified and Receiving Services
The first measure of the WRAVoT program is the quantitative change over time of VoTs that contact the WRAVoT hotline and that use the assistance services provided. A numeric assessment could be made of the change in activity of the following two types of victims:
VoTs who were identified via the hotline and used assistance services successfully.
Here the measure of “success” is subject to the standards prescribed by the evaluator, and this should be noted in the evaluation methodology (as noted above, an index of successful reintegration would be a useful tool here). These indicators will not necessarily require a comparison group, though the
evaluation could be strengthened if one could find VoTs who were referred to assistance services, but chose not to use them.
This rough measure of an increase or decrease in victim identification and assistance should be
supported by qualitative descriptions of the types of assistance given. Some qualitative questions could include:
How does the hotline system help VoTs? How are hotline operators updated and informed about the changing needs of VoTs or changes in available services?
Do the shelters, hotline, stakeholder training and re-integration program have features that build sustainability for resources beyond the life of the program? Has the integration of locally
available government funded services improved sustainability of services?
To ensure that the services resulted in lasting success for the victims assisted, one would want to measure impact at least one or two years later. Understanding the patterns of “re-trafficking” is an important factor here. Similarly, defining and measuring success is critical, as the victims being assisted may have a different definition of success than those assisting them. For example, victims may wish to migrate again, but this time successfully securing a satisfactory job, while service providers may measure success as the individual remaining in the country and undertaking employment in a locally available job (Rosenberg, 2008).
2. Resources for VoTs Strengthened
In order to evaluate VoT protection activities, one must be able to infer that the services offered enabled VoTs to become more economically and socially independent and able to exert control over their wellbeing. An indicative measure of this is to show that the service providers increased the resources available to VoTs, and that VoTs have continued access to and ability to make use of these services.
For this second predictor, statistical significance would be assessed by a concrete standard envisioned by the statistical experts for a quantitative threshold whereby service providers are assessed on their ability to successfully provide assistance services to build life and job skills.
Qualitative questions that could further inform the use of assistance services include:
How do the assistance services build in understanding of the kinds of skills VoTs need to reestablish normal life and to avoid the advances of traffickers?
What kinds of services or service packages had lasting effects for VoTs, once they returned home (or established a new one), and what configurations of services or support worked best and fastest?
3. Resources in Community Strengthened
Another measure of the WRAVoT program could be a significant change in community resources accessed for understanding trafficking and identifying/helping victims of trafficking. This analysis would require a comparison community where the WRAVoT program has not been implemented.
Effects of media campaigns and trainings to inform the public and service providers about identification and services for VoTs are extremely hard to measure, particularly because it is unknown what the universe audience could be and how many people could potentially hear the announcements.
Therefore, the most that the evaluator can measure is the change in the rate of referral to hotlines and assistance websites based on the media campaign and trainings (from quantitative surveys of a sample of the population).
Several qualitative questions that could support this indicator could be:
What services were the most effective for the community and the victim‟s overall support system? Were there effects on the community response and support to victims?
How does the program work with communities, social networks, and authorities referring victims about how they could be more efficient and provide more of an integrated network, and engage the victims themselves in being part of the network?