An official website of the United States Government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Acronyms

AG                   Attorney General

AHTU               Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (part of GPS)

CCPC                Community Child Protection Committees

CPC                  Child Protection Compact Partnership (also referred to as the Partnership)

COR                 Contracting Officer’s Representative

CSEC                Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

DoS                  U.S. Department of State

DOVSSU          Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (part of GPS)

DSW                Department of Social Welfare (under MoGCSP)

ET                    Evaluation Team

FGD                 Focus Group Discussion

FTS                  Free the Slaves

GHS                 Ghanaian cedi

GI                    Group Interview

GIS                   Ghana Immigration Service

GoG                 Government of Ghana

GPS                  Ghana Police Service

HTF                  Human Trafficking Fund

HTS                  Human Trafficking Secretariat

INGH               International Needs Ghana

IOM                 International Organization for Migration

IP                     Implementing Partner

JUPOL              Judicial Police (part of GPS)

KI                     Key Informant

KII                    Key Informant Interview

MELR               Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations (Ghana)

MoGCSP          Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (Ghana)

MoI                 Ministry of the Interior (Ghana)

MoJAGD          Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department (Ghana)

NGO                Non-governmental organization

SOPs                Standard Operating Procedures

TIP                   Trafficking in Persons

TIP Office        Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (DoS)

TWG                Technical Working Group

USAID              U.S. Agency for International Development

USG                 Government of the United States

VOT                 Victim of Trafficking

Executive Summary

Ghana is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking and has remained on the United States Government (USG) Tier 2 Watch List for three consecutive years (2015, 2016, and 2017). The five-year U.S.-Ghana Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership, signed in 2015, is the first program in which the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP Office) secured and leveraged negotiated commitments of a foreign government together with $5 million in targeted anti-trafficking foreign assistance aimed at addressing child trafficking.

The CPC focuses on eight objectives: 1) provision of comprehensive and trauma-informed services, including reintegration; 2) increasing successful investigations and prosecutions; 3) improving interagency cooperation; 4) increasing public awareness of child trafficking; 5) implementing standard operating procedures for identification and rescue of trafficked children; 6) standardizing referral protocols for timely interagency response; 7) implementing data collection mechanisms to monitor anti-trafficking outcomes; and 8) increasing options for livelihoods to support families of at-risk or trafficked children. To help accomplish these objectives, key partners International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Free the Slaves (FTS) work collaboratively with Ghana-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

This midline evaluation is designed to assess progress toward meeting the above objectives, examine challenges in meeting these objectives and provide a snapshot of training on child trafficking and ways in which training has been put to use. Data collected during this midline assessment has been assessed against baseline data collected during the start of the CPC and compares data from the CPC target regions (Greater Accra, Central and Volta) to the CPC comparison regions (Ashanti and Eastern). Two mixed teams of two evaluators each (one Ghanaian and one international; one male, one female) conducted a total of 70 key informant interviews (83 individuals) and three focus group discussions (42 individuals) in Ghana over a three-week period during February of 2018.

While the CPC is at the midway point, this midline evaluation comes at a relatively early stage in the implementation of key activities. Roll out and training on the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) began only five months prior to this evaluation. The new data collection process, while piloted with participating agencies, had not yet been implemented. The refurbishment of the Madina shelter for child trafficking victims was nearly complete but the shelter had not yet re-opened. Additionally, some CPC activities at the national level were delayed due to change in government actors after the elections at the end of 2016.  Nevertheless, measurable progress has been made to date. This report presents findings on the definition of child trafficking, and then organizes findings according to the four Ps – Protection, Prosecution, Prevention and Partnership.

Definition: As first reported in the baseline assessment,[1] confusion remains around whether movement is essential to establish a case of child trafficking with respondents in 77% of KIIs/GIs (n=53) indicating that movement is an essential element of human trafficking. Additionally, in 25% of KIIs/GIs, stakeholders believed that consent of a minor is a basis to dismiss the charge of trafficking in the case of the commercial sexual exploitation of the minor. The baseline also reported a lack of clarity between child labor and child trafficking. Such confusion around child labor versus child trafficking was not evident during this midline evaluation. While most respondents had a reasonable understanding of trafficking, the confusion about movement and consent could affect how police and prosecutors pursue trafficking cases.

Protection: National data demonstrates impressive increases in identification and rescue of child trafficking victims, increasing from seven in 2016 to 217 in 2017. However, CPC target regions do not appear to account for most of these increases; accounting for 33% of child victims identified in 2017.  Identification and rescue remain somewhat uneven, and not all agencies or districts, even within the target regions, are equally proactive.  Some respondents in law enforcement acknowledged that they waited for suspected cases to be reported and saw their role as reactive. Some police have been more pro-active, especially those working with IJM. One district officer noted increases in pro-active approaches in his district: “Marine police are now patrolling the water; we are getting somewhere” (target region, Ghana Police Service).

Measuring the quality and sufficiency of services for child victims of trafficking is to some extent contextual and subjective.  Nevertheless, respondents were asked to rank services based on their opinions and there was a fairly clear consensus that services were often under-resourced, not of consistently high quality, not sufficiently available in all locations, uneven in the array of services offered, and especially difficult to find for victims of sex trafficking. The Madina government shelter, refurbished under the CPC, is slated to open in 2018, and will add capacity for 40 children, including victims of sex trafficking.  As was similarly reported in the baseline assessment,[2] private shelters were better resourced than government shelters, and therefore able to offer more services and perceived higher quality services. In the absence of broad awareness and implementation of minimum standards for age-appropriate services for victims of trafficking, or monitoring systems to ensure implementation,[3] the scope and quality of services is not consistent across providers and remains dependent on resources.  Reintegration services are especially challenging, more so because push-factors of poverty and cultural norms are prevalent in some communities and community-based follow-up was said to be under-resourced.

In response to questions about trauma informed care, most respondents were able to recognize that victims of child trafficking had suffered trauma and that this might impact their wellbeing and behavior. Stakeholders offer emergency support (food, clothing, a place to sleep), try to calm the victim and offer parental advice. This compares with the baseline, which mentions “do no harm” approaches and using “basic social knowledge” in handling victims.[4] When asked what was meant by trauma informed care most described it as stabilizing the child in some way: for police, calming the child before interviewing them; for social workers, stabilizing them before providing other services or reuniting them with their families. Only one respondent, an NGO service provider, was able to fully describe trauma-informed approaches and how these had been implemented throughout the organization.

Prosecution: National data provided by the GoG shows progress during the period of the CPC in investigations, arrests, and to a lesser extent, prosecutions and convictions. Investigation of suspected child trafficking is seen as moving forward, with investigations in 2016 involving 7 child victims, accelerating to investigation involving 196 child victims reported in 2017.[5] Despite this, constraints to prosecution remain: prosecutors repeatedly cited shortcomings in evidence collection and preservation, while law enforcement and investigators mentioned resource constraints and obstacles in getting witness testimony. Interviewees also indicated undue influence from politicians and corruption from perpetrators as factors constraining prosecution of trafficking cases. The baseline assessment indicated that investigations had been pushed off on NGOs,[6] whereas this was not found to be the case during this midline assessment. Based on the number of prosecutions of all cases of trafficking, involving both adult and child victims, which climbed from 11 in 2016 to 29 in 2017, prosecutions are on the rise.  Convictions under the Human Trafficking Act of 2005, as amended, increased from zero to six convictions in 2017.[7] However, there were several instances where Attorney General (AG) prosecutors, after review of available evidence, reduced the charges to conform to that evidence, which was deemed insufficient to prove trafficking.

Prevention: Most respondents were aware of or had seen public awareness materials or campaigns, and many of these were reported to have some positive impact, significantly more so in target regions than in comparison regions. Respondents mentioned different messages and delivery channels, and some opinions diverged when it came to what worked best. The general consensus among respondents was that public awareness was most effective at the grassroots level, through community meetings and gatherings, referred to as durbars, and featuring community leaders, including faith leaders and chiefs.

Livelihoods schemes, including LEAP, are not viewed to be sufficient to prevent trafficking or to mitigate re-trafficking.  Virtually every interviewee who discussed livelihood schemes noted that there are few programs available and those which do exist are inadequate, not providing sufficient economic support to families at risk or to families of child trafficking victims to prevent trafficking or re-trafficking.

Partnerships: Creating a framework for collaboration is a key goal of the CPC and a structure with focal points is provided under the CPC Partnership. The HTMB, though not active during 2017, was reconstituted in early 2018.[8] The CPC Technical Working Group (TWG) is functional and active, though some reported that not all members are able to prioritize child trafficking to the same extent. The Human Trafficking Secretariat is considered informed and dedicated. Collaboration was reported throughout operations, including among GoG agencies and between the GoG and NGO actors.  Some cited that government should take the lead, and that a few non-State actors had overstepped their role, especially in undertaking rescues without engaging the police. Others displayed a strong reliance on NGOs. Overall, collaboration was routine and free of major challenges, but not typically governed by SOPs.

The Government of Ghana (GoG) financial contribution to the CPC partnership is difficult to track as the GoG is not able to fully disaggregate resources dedicated to combatting child trafficking. Significant funding has been allocated, but distribution was stalled until the Human Trafficking Management Board (HTMB) was reconstituted.

Under the CPC Partnership the MoGCSP is responsible for monitoring indicators to measure the success of CPC implementation and compiling data to facilitate a strategic response.[9]   Data flows are improving, as evidenced by the MoGCSP CPC Semiannual Report for January 2015 to December 2017 and as stated in interviews, and data is now being disaggregated for child trafficking and by CPC target regions.[10] Stakeholders have been trained on the use of a new database which will be rolled out in the CPC target regions pending approval by the GoG. According to national actors, several data collection challenges remain, including compilation of data from the districts up to the national level and lack of consistent electricity and connectivity which limits use of computers and leads to reliance on a paper-based system.  While many challenges remain, the above-mentioned CPC Semiannual Data Report as well as data submitted to DoS for the annual TIP Report clearly show more data being collected nationally and in the CPC target regions during 2017 than in prior years.[11]

Challenges: Respondents noted many challenges had been overcome, citing less confusion surrounding the definition of child labor versus child trafficking, advances in funding and resource allocation (including procurement of six vehicles from CPC funds), increased enthusiasm of the Ghana Police Service (GPS) and other stakeholders to address trafficking, better collaboration on rescues, accelerated awareness of child trafficking among CPC implementers and in communities, and better data reporting and flow.

Respondents also named several ongoing challenges. Resource and funding issues were at the top of the list of challenges, including resources for staffing, transportation and operations, and hospitality for community gatherings and TWG meetings. Several named the need for vehicles, boats, fuel, lodging and per diem to enable police to chase down suspects or enable social workers to follow-up on reintegrated victims. Funds for victim care were also said to be lacking, and several police and social workers said they used their own funds for emergency needs of victims. Shelters were said to be too few and under-resourced. This replicates the baseline finding, which also reported resource constraints.[12]  

A second continuing challenge was the lack of widespread buy-in on what constituted child trafficking and whether it should be illegal or prosecuted. Due to cultural norms around child labor, respondents felt that communities were not enthusiastic about pursuing trafficking, and outside of the most egregious cases, sometimes did not understand why it was illegal or even wrong. Some cases were reportedly handled through traditional methods of justice by community chiefs or leaders, rather than criminal cases in courts. Unemployment and endemic poverty were repeatedly cited as a challenge to preventing child trafficking.

Training: IOM has trained over 500 anti-trafficking stakeholders (GPS, DSW, MELR, MoJAGD, judges, and others) on the new SOPs for identification, screening and rescue of trafficked children, direct assistance, investigations and prosecution. At the time of this evaluation, the SOPs were newly-launched and their use not yet institutionalized; many stakeholders cited the use of other internal procedures and forms. More than half of respondents had not yet seen a case of child trafficking and thus had not had an opportunity to use the SOPs. This is likely to improve with more time and training (the SOPs were released in October 2017).

Recommendations

  1. Through implementation of the next phase of CPC activities, consider additional emphasis on the following areas:
    1. Continue to promote understanding and application of Ghana’s definition of child trafficking.
    2. Continue to support and monitor expansion and quality of protection services.
    3. Expand efforts to develop and enhance service referrals for victims and their families.
    4. Finalize and promote implementation of the CPC data collection methodology.
    5. Emphasize and prioritize awareness-raising at the grassroots level.
    6. Continue to advocate for LEAP eligibility for families with child victims of trafficking.
    7. Continue to extend mandatory curriculum and training.
  2. Protection: Provide on-the-job training to Madina staff.
  3. Prosecution:
    1. Encourage release of GoG funding to address resource constraints.
    2. Examine feasibility of the task force model for collaboration on cases.
  4. Partnership:
    1. Invite more stakeholders to participate in select CPC TWG meetings.
    2. Consider support to expand SOPs into the other regions, focusing first where authorities have identified cases.

I. Background and Context

Human Trafficking in Ghana

Ghana is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking. Ghanaian children are particularly vulnerable to forced labor within the country in the fishing industry and in domestic servitude.  According to the U.S. Department of State’s (DoS) 2017 Annual Trafficking in Persons Report, research has found that many of the children working on and around Lake Volta are subjected to forced labor and other harsh conditions and not allowed to attend school.[13] Another study found that children from nearly one-third of the households surveyed in the Volta and Central Regions had been subjected to trafficking.[14]

DoS has found that the Government of Ghana (GoG) does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but that it has made significant efforts to do so. In the 2017 TIP Report, Ghana was placed on the Tier 2 Watch List for the third consecutive year. In 2018, Ghana was upgraded to Tier 2.[15]

U.S.-Ghana Child Protection Compact Partnership

Seeking to assist the GoG in its efforts to address child trafficking, the five-year U.S.-Ghana Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership, signed in 2015, is the first such program in which the DoS Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP Office) combined negotiated commitments of a foreign government with significant foreign assistance aimed at addressing child trafficking. The GoG participants in the Partnership include the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MoGCSP), the Ministry of the Interior (MoI), the Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations (MELR) and the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Department (MoJAGD). The roles of each participating agency are defined in the Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership signed by the GoG and the U.S. Government (USG).

The GoG established a CPC Technical Working Group (TWG) to oversee the activities of the CPC. The TWG includes representatives from government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The government representatives on the TWG include the Ghana Police Service (GPS) and the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) (both under the MoI), the MoJAGD public prosecutors, the Child Labor Unit (CLU) of MELR, and the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) and the Human Trafficking Secretariat, both under the MoGCSP. Non-governmental representatives include the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Free the Slaves (FTS) and International Needs Ghana (INGH); all three are actively involved in CPC implementation.

The TIP Office is providing foreign assistance totaling $5 million to two implementing partners (IPs), IOM and FTS, to support the GoG’s capacity to meet the eight CPC Partnership objectives.  To help the government accomplish the objectives, IOM and FTS also work collaboratively with Ghana-based NGOs. Implementation is conducted in three target regions – Central, Volta and Greater Accra.

II. Evaluation Purpose, Scope and Questions

Evaluation Purpose and Audience

This midline performance evaluation was commissioned by the TIP Office to evaluate the extent to which the CPC is achieving its eight objectives. It seeks to measure the effectiveness of all CPC components and thereby help to determine whether the goals, objectives, activities and performance indicators established at the outset need adjusting. This evaluation is also expected to identify key obstacles, so that mid-course corrections can be made and to address programmatic and contextual factors that have contributed to measurable change in commitment of government resources and political will for combating child trafficking. The TIP Office also seeks to understand the extent to which the CPC Partnership model has improved the GoG response to child trafficking and whether this model could be effectively employed in other countries.

Results from this evaluation are expected to be used to determine whether and how adjustment is needed to CPC activities, including those of IPs, at this critical, mid-term implementation period. In addition, this midline evaluation will enable the TIP Office to assess the effectiveness of this type of partnership in similar contexts, in order to design and implement future partnerships to be more effective. The evaluation will also be informative for other key stakeholders, including the GoG; DoS policy makers and program managers; members of Congress and congressional staff engaged in human trafficking related authorizations and appropriations; U.S. Embassy Accra; the DoS Africa Bureau; the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Labor staff working on child labor and child trafficking issues; IOM, FTS and the DoS Evaluation Community of Practice.

Evaluation Scope

The midline evaluation covers the first two years of the CPC (10/1/15 – 12/31/17). This midline evaluation is the second phase of a multi-phased evaluation, to assess key factors in the government’s continuing response to child trafficking. Two baseline assessments were carried out for the CPC in 2016: the Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Compact Partnership, conducted by Westat, and the Nordic Consulting Group Denmark A/S and JMK Consulting of Ghana report Growing Up Free: Baseline Report on the FTS program in Volta and Central Regions in Ghana.[16] This midline assessment will compare progress primarily to the Westat baseline assessment, and, where relevant, to the Nordic Consulting Group A/S baseline report.

Evaluation Questions

This midline performance evaluation was designed to answer three main questions, the first of which is broken down into eight sub-parts:

  1. To what extent have CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the eight objectives of the Ghana CPC Partnership?
    1. Provision of comprehensive, gender-sensitive, trauma-informed care and case management services with appropriate community integration and follow up for an increased number of child trafficking victims.
    2. An increased number of successful investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of forced child labor and child sex trafficking.
    3. Improved interagency coordination of anti-trafficking efforts.
    4. Increased public awareness of the nature of child trafficking, its devastating impact on children, and the importance of prevention.
    5. Establishment and implementation of procedures for pro-active identification and removal of children from trafficking situations, including children in forced child labor in the fishing industry.
    6. Establishment and operation of a systematic referral mechanism with protocols for timely interagency response to suspected cases of child trafficking.
    7. Implementation of mechanisms for data collection designed to monitor indicators of anti-trafficking program outcomes supported through this Partnership and which can be sustained to track key government interventions, such as the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in child trafficking cases and the numbers of child trafficking victims identified and who receive services.
    8. The increased use of livelihood options for families with children at risk of trafficking or removed from trafficking situations.
  2. What are the challenges in meeting these objectives? [What progress has been made in addressing challenges identified in the baseline study? What challenges have been overcome, and how? What challenges remain?]
  1. What training have key actors received on child trafficking and how have they used the training?

III. Evaluation Design and Methodology

The midline evaluation is designed to compare data collected at the mid-point of the CPC to data collected at baseline as well as to compare progress made in CPC target regions to comparison regions established at the outset of the CPC, though recognizing that progress in comparison regions may not be stagnant. In order to ensure consistency and maximize comparability of data, the evaluation team (ET) made every effort possible to utilize similar methodologies as the 2016 Westat baseline assessment, which collected baseline data for the three CPC target regions and the two comparison regions. To further strengthen the reliability and validity of this evaluation, the ET vetted the data collection instruments with TIP Office staff for their inputs and tested the KII protocol with the initial KIIs. The ET also peer reviewed the analyses of the data through internal discussions to agree on common themes emerging from the analyses. The evaluation followed three phases: planning, data collection and data analysis.

Planning

During the planning phase, DevTech participated in a kick-off meeting as well as in two additional planning meetings with the TIP Office Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and others involved in development of the Ghana CPC Partnership and in oversight of the IPs to discuss the evaluation purpose and use, clarification of evaluation questions, challenges encountered during baseline data collection, logistical challenges and documents needed for the document review. During the planning phase, the evaluation team reviewed the evaluation scope of work as well as background documents as they became available, designed the data collection plan and a preliminary fieldwork schedule and drafted data collection protocols.

Data Collection

Site Selection

The three target regions of the CPC are Greater Accra, Central and Volta. The two comparison regions are Ashanti and Eastern. In-person interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) took place in February 2018; phone-based interviews took place in March 2018.[17] Site selection for the midline performance evaluation was based on the sites selected for the Westat baseline evaluation, which included the regional capitals as well as two districts per region, selected based on the prevalence of child trafficking and proximity to the regional capital.[18] Table 1, below, presents the sampling districts for each region.

Table 1. Site Visit Selection
CPC Region District 1 District 2
Greater Accra Jamestown Ada West
Central Effutu Ekumfi
Volta Kpando Kete Krachi
Comparison Region
Ashanti Obuasi Amansie West
Eastern Asougyaman Afram Plains

Data Collection Methods and Sampling

There were three main methods of data collection for this study: (1) document review, (2) key informant interviews (KIIs) with experts and stakeholders, and (3) focus group discussions (FGD) with the CPC TWG as well as with two communities targeted for interventions. All data collection methods were implemented at the same time.

Document Review: The document review had several objectives:

  1. Collect background information about the project to inform evaluation design;
  2. Collect statistical information from secondary sources on estimated numbers of rescues, arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for child trafficking cases;
  3. Verify the existence of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), referral mechanisms and other mechanisms developed through the Partnership;
  4. Compile baseline information for comparison and analysis;
  5. Develop a list of interventions supported by IOM and FTS that were intended to impact the achievement of the CPC objectives.

The initial document and literature review was conducted prior to data collection in Ghana. It was based primarily on the documents provided by the TIP Office, including the signed U.S.-Ghana Child Protection Compact Partnership, project Scopes of Work (SoWs), IOM and FTS quarterly reports, the Westat Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Compact Partnership: Inception Report and Baseline Report and the Nordic Consulting Group Baseline report. The ongoing document review during the data collection included Ghanaian laws, SOPs developed through the CPC and statistics provided by the GoG to the U.S. Embassy in Accra and the TIP Office. The TIP Office requested that the ET not collect statistical data during fieldwork but rely instead on the above-referenced data provided by the GoG.[19] This differs from the Westat baseline, which asked each KI to provide data on cases in which they were involved.

Key Informant Interviews: Key informant interviews (KII) were our central data collection method for this evaluation. Twelve KIIs turned into group interviews (GIs) as more than one person from the office participated in the discussion. Findings from KIIs and GIs deepened the ET’s understanding of the implementation of CPC activities and provided opinions of different stakeholders regarding progress made toward achievement of CPC objectives and challenges in implementation.

In order to allow comparison with the baseline, KIIs/GIs were conducted in the same regions and districts as the baseline study. The initial list of key informants was based on the list of 67 government officials and 24 NGO representatives listed as key informants in the Westat baseline assessment. This included officials from each of the four participating CPC ministries: a minimum of one national-level official from each ministry, one regional-level official from each ministry in each of the five regions, and at least one district-level official per ministry (except for MoJAGD which does not have district level representation) in two districts of each of the five regions.  In case of turnover, the evaluation team generally interviewed the person currently in the position. Additionally, the ET sought to hold KIIs with those NGOs interviewed by the baseline assessment team who have a role in the CPC or are actively involved in related counter trafficking activities in the target or comparison regions.  A list of the types of individuals interviewed is included as Annex III, which also documents changes from the Westat baseline.[20]

Table 2: Number, Gender and Region of Key Informants in KIIs and GIs
Region Total Individuals – KIIs and GIs Number of KIIs held Male Informants in KIIs Female Informants in KIIs Number of GIs held Male Informants in GIs Female Informants in GIs
Government
National 7 5 1 4 1 1 1
Target Region
Greater Accra 15 13 7 6 1 1 1
Central 11 9 6 3 1 2 0
Volta 13 9 9 0 2 2 2
Comparison Region
Eastern 15 8 7 1 3 4 3
Ashanti 11 9 6 3 1 2 0
IP/NGO 11 5 4 1 3 3 3
TOTAL 83 58 40 18 12 15 10
Table 3: Number of Key Informants by Agency
Agency Target Regions Comparison Regions
DSW/MoGCSP[21] 12 10
GPS/GIS/MoI[22] 19 9
MELR 11 5
MoJAGD 4 2
IP/NGOs 11 0
TOTAL 57 26

KII Protocol: Interviews were guided by a protocol that included targeted inquiries to collect information to answer the evaluation questions (see Annex IV, KII protocol). The protocol used a semi-structured questionnaire format including both closed and open-ended questions. The KII protocol was designed to be tailored to each informant. Time would not allow for each respondent to answer all protocol questions; the ET had one hour with each key informant. Therefore, the protocol was designed with skip protocols, meaning that questions and sub-sections could be skipped if responses to prior questions made clear that they were not relevant to that informant. As a result, each question has a unique number of respondents who responded to it.  For sev

eral interviews, especially with CPC IPs at the national level, the interview protocol was not followed, but, where appropriate to the role of the respondent, the same line of questioning was included. For in-person interviews, each KI was also asked to define child trafficking. This question was asked in order to understand any confusion which might exist around child trafficking, child labor and other crimes, and to put KIs’ responses into context.

Not all informants could be interviewed in person. Some informants were not available during the fieldwork in their location. Additionally, and just as in the Westat baseline assessment, the ET could not go in person to each district due to time constraints. These KIs were interviewed by phone. The ET successfully conducted a total of 70 KIIs/GIs with 83 individual respondents.

Table 4: Respondents Interviewed, including KIIs, GIs and FGDs
Type of Interview Number of Interviews National and IP/NGOs Target Region Comparison Region Number of Individuals Male Female
KI 58 10 31 17 58 40 18
GI 12 4 4 4 25 15 10
FGD 3  0 3 0 42 25 17
TOTAL 73 14 38 21 125[23] 80 45

In order to facilitate data collection, two two-person teams conducted interviews. Each team consisted of one international and one local team member.  The full team conducted the first several KIIs together to ensure that all team members would conduct interviews in the same manner and to test the protocol.  The ET revised the protocol during the first week of field work to ensure the questions solicited the information necessary to answer the evaluation questions.

Focus Group Discussions: The evaluation team conducted three FGDs. The first FGD was with 14 members of the CPC TWG. The ET had limited time with the TWG and focused the discussion on progress to date, government commitments and data collection.  While not planned in advance, the ET was able to organize two FGDs, involving 28 participants, with communities involved in FTS’s interventions, with the help of INGH. The ET met with community child protection committees (CCPC)[24] in both communities and additionally with some ‘learning group’ members developed by INGH in one community. A total of 42 individuals participated in FGDs (25 men, 17 women). See Annex V for the protocols used for all three FGDs.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data collected during KIIs/GIs and FGDs was analyzed using Dedoose software. Quantifiable data from the interviews was analyzed using Excel. A table provided in Annex VII outlines major approaches to data collection and analysis for each evaluation question.

Limitations

As with any evaluation, there are a number of limitations which can affect the reliability and validity of the findings. Below are some of the limitations and biases that may have affected data collection. The evaluation was designed to mitigate these biases by triangulating data across stakeholder groups and across data collection methods.

Gender Bias: Individuals have conscious and unconscious gender biases, including opinions about appropriate roles and behavior of males and females.  This can affect all aspects of an activity but may be especially important when it comes to sensitive issues such as human trafficking and sex trafficking in particular. Data analysis was conducted whenever possible to tease out gender differences. The full evaluation team and two-person sub-teams, all included both male and female members in order to mitigate gender bias in analysis and interpretation that team members themselves may bring to bear as well as to mitigate any bias that may result from how KIIs respond to interviewers of different genders.

Recall Bias: KIIs and FGDs rely on the memories of individuals.  Memories are imperfect and are influenced by many factors including what was deemed significant to the individual, what took their time and attention, and if there were other distractions in their life at the time of an activity or event. Recall bias was mitigated by aggregating responses from multiple informants.

Response Bias: Response bias comes into play when a person, consciously or unconsciously, provides a response influenced by a variety of factors. The individual may give a positive response in order to please the interviewer, influence the donor or present their organization or culture in a positive light. On the other hand, a person could give a negative response for the opposite reasons – to negatively portray a rival, for example. During group interviews, individuals may echo the opinions voiced by someone of higher rank.  The ET was accompanied during the first week of data collection by one TIP Office staff. The staff did not attend the FGD with the TWG in order not to bias their responses since most members of the TWG know her and her role. On one occasion, the ET asked the TIP Office staff to leave the room for the final portion of the interview to give the respondent a chance to speak anonymously.  In this interview and others, her presence did not appear to influence respondents’ willingness to make negative comments. In general, the ET utilized facilitation techniques to minimize response bias. As with recall bias, the analysis mitigated response bias by aggregating responses from multiple informants.

Sampling and Selection Bias: Because the midline evaluation is designed to mirror the Westat baseline study, the districts to be sampled and the individuals to be interviewed had been pre-determined, thus random sampling methods could not be utilized. Districts were selected based on recommendations by the MoGCSP and the TIP Office.[25] The Westat baseline assessment report does not indicate how individuals were selected. The selection of individuals and districts can influence the findings, for example if only the most active and engaged individuals are selected for interviews.  Additionally, given the constraints of budget and time, the evaluation team was not able to interview everyone involved in the CPC, had limited time with each individual and was not able to probe deeply with each person into every question.

Poor or non-existent data collection and statistical information: There is limited data available from the GoG on TIP cases, including victims identified, investigations, prosecutions or convictions. The ET received national data on human trafficking from the DoS.  The ET also received some data from the GoG, through the TIP Office, with data similar to the national data for the three CPC target regions, but for the calendar year 2017 only. Unfortunately, the ET did not receive this same data for the comparison regions.

Other limitations: Based on TIP Office guidance and time constraints, the methodology did not include interviews with trafficking victims or their guardians. Therefore, the analysis of evaluation questions related to assistance and services for victims does not include the opinions of child survivors or their families. While data triangulation may mitigate this limitation to some extent, the lack of survivor voices could not be fully mitigated within the planned methodology. As noted above, the ET was able to conduct FGDs with two communities in Ghana. At least two participants in one of the FGDs were parents of child victims of trafficking (VOTs) who received services through the CPC partnership. While the focus of the FGD was not on them or their children, their opinions on related matters are noted when applicable.

Data Protection

Throughout data collection and reporting, the ET abided by the ethical principles of informed consent, respect, sensitivity, do no harm, non-discrimination and confidentiality. The ET obtained informed consent before each interview. The ET provided respondents with the written consent form and read aloud the sections describing the purpose of the study and voluntary participation in the interview. In FGDs in the communities, in order not to embarrass anyone who might be illiterate, the same procedure was followed but consent was taken verbally for each individual.[26]

Participation in this evaluation was not expected to present any risks or provide any direct benefits to respondents. Although the respondent population included only adults and was not expected to include any vulnerable groups,[27] the evaluation team nevertheless took steps to minimize any potential risk of participation by taking steps to protect respondents. First, interviews did not take place until respondents had given their informed consent as noted above. Additionally, all respondents were assigned an identification code.  Notes from interviews are marked only with the identification code, no names or other identifiers. The list of codes with identifying information about the respondents is kept separate from the interview notes. Only the ET members have access to the codes. Every effort was taken to ensure that information reported cannot be linked to the individuals from which it came.

IV. Findings

Findings are presented below by evaluation question.   In addition to the evaluation questions, the ET was asked to assess respondents’ understanding of the definition of child trafficking.  This was done in order to ensure that confusion around definitions, which was found during the baseline assessment, would not impact on midline evaluation findings. Findings under the exploration of the definition of trafficking are presented first. Following this, findings for the first evaluation question – To what extent have CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the eight objectives of the Ghana CPC project? – are presented. These findings have been re-ordered so that CPC objectives related to each of the four ‘Ps’ (protection, prosecution, prevention and partnership) are grouped together. While some objectives are relevant for more than one ‘P,’ they are grouped in the report as follows:

Protection:

  • EQ1.a: Provision of comprehensive, gender-sensitive, trauma-informed care and case management services with appropriate community integration and follow up for an increased number of child trafficking victims;
  • EQ1.e: Establishment and implementation of procedures for pro-active identification and removal of children from trafficking situations, including children in forced child labor in the fishing industry; and
  • EQ1.f: Establishment and operation of a systematic referral mechanism with protocols for timely interagency response to suspected cases of child trafficking.

Prosecution:

  • EQ1.b: An increased number of successful investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of forced child labor and child sex trafficking.

Prevention:

  • EQ1.d: Increased public awareness of the nature of child trafficking, its devastating impact on children, and the importance of prevention; and
  • EQ1.h: The increased use of livelihood options for families with children at risk of trafficking or removed from trafficking situations.

Partnership:

  • EQ1.c: Improved interagency coordination of anti-trafficking efforts.
  • EQ1.g: Implementation of mechanisms for data collection designed to monitor indicators of anti-trafficking program outcomes supported through this Partnership and which can be sustained to track key government interventions, such as the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in child trafficking cases and the numbers of child trafficking victims identified and who receive services.

Findings for evaluation questions 2 (challenges) and 3 (training) follow in order.

Definition of Child Trafficking for Forced Labor and Commercial Sexual Exploitation

The CPC Partnership includes, in Addendum A, a definition of child trafficking.  The Republic of Ghana’s Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694) and Human Trafficking Prohibition (Protection and Reintegration of Trafficked Persons) Regulations, 2015[28] also define human trafficking and are consistent with, though not as descriptive as the definition in the CPC Partnership.

To clarify respondents’ understanding of the definition of child trafficking, at the outset of each in-person KII/GI, the team asked respondents to define child trafficking in their own words. The definition of child trafficking was asked of 66 respondents during 53 KIIs/GIs.[29] If the response was not clear, respondents were asked to provide an example of labor trafficking and/or sex trafficking and were probed to identify key elements in the example that matched the definition of child trafficking in their view.  Several responses required further probing to clarify the respondent’s definition of child labor trafficking versus other forms of labor abuses, and between child sex trafficking and other forms of sexual abuse or exploitation. During such probing, six respondents contradicted themselves or remained unclear, resulting in responses being classified as ‘unclear or vague.’

In only seven KIs/GIs (13%, n=53) did the definition fully conform with the CPC Partnership definition of child trafficking.  Respondents in target regions were slightly less likely to state a definition which fully conformed (11%, n=36) than those in comparison regions (18%, n=17).

Table 5: Respondents Citing Movement as a Requirement for Human Trafficking
Organization No. of KIIs/GIs Total # of KIIs/GIs (n) Percentage
IP/NGOs 3 5 60%
MoGCSP/DSW 11 12 92%
MoI/GIS/GPS 15 21 71%
MELR 9 10 90%
MoJAGD 3 5 60%
TOTAL 41 53 77%

Common among responses was the notion that movement was required in a case of trafficking (77% of KIIs/GIs, n=53).  Respondents in target regions were slightly more likely to state this than respondents in comparison regions (29 KIIs/GIs, n=36 (80%) and 12 KIIs/GIs, n=17 (71%), respectively). National and regional level respondents (7 KIIs/GIs, n=9 (78%) and 21 KIIs/GIs, n=27 (78%) respectively) were less likely than those at the district level (10 KIIs/GIs, n=12 (83%) to indicate that movement is required. There were also differences based on role or department, ranging from 60% (MoJAGD and IP/NGOs[30]) to 90% (MELR) and 92% (MoGCSP & DSW). See table 5, above.

Another common discrepancy between the CPC definition and the responses given related to child sex trafficking and whether the commercial sexual exploitation of a child (CSEC) was always considered trafficking. Probing on this question was not done consistently in the beginning of fieldwork. As a result, the numbers reported here may be lower than they would have been otherwise.

In 26 KIIs/GIs (19 target region, 7 comparison region), respondents indicated that there are circumstances under which a child under the age of 18 could be engaged in commercial sexual exploitation without it being trafficking. In six interviews respondents clearly indicated that if the child was doing this independently without a third party involved, including parents, then this was not human trafficking. In thirteen interviews (25%; 10 target, 3 comparison regions) respondents made the point that if the child was not forced or deceived they could ‘consent’ and then it was not human trafficking. “Under 18 sex exploitation, is not TIP if done by consent” (target region, GPS). One respondent made the case that if it was not by force and the child was not under 16, the age of sexual consent, then it was not human trafficking. In thirteen interviews respondents explicitly stated that CSEC of children under 18 would not be human trafficking if no movement was involved.[31][We] have had cases in [location deleted] where a child is involved prostitution – children of 12 or 13. But it’s not trafficking because they have not been moved” (target region, DSW). See table 6, below.

Table 6: Respondents Citing Exceptions in Defining Sex Trafficking of a Minor[32]
Organization Total # KIIs/ GIs (n) Target Regions
KIIs/GIs who said TIP was NOT present under these exceptions
Comparison Regions
KIIs/GIs who said TIP was NOT present under these exceptions
Child Consent No Movement No 3rd Party Child Consent No Movement No 3rd Party Other
IP/NGOs 5 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 3 (60%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
MoGCSP/DSW 12 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%)
MoI/GIS/GPS 21 4 (19%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%)  2 (10%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
MELR 10 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)   1 (10%) 0 (0%)  1 (10%)
MoJAGD 5 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
TOTAL 53 10 (19%) 10 (19%) 5 (9%) 3 (6%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)

The Westat baseline assessment reported a lack of clarity between child labor and child trafficking which was not evident during this midline evaluation. The baseline assessment also found respondents’ definition of child sex trafficking was consistent with the law which was not evident in this evaluation. In both the baseline assessment and this midline assessment many respondents believed movement to be necessary in a trafficking case, “a needed element for trafficking.”[33] Though responses on the definition of child trafficking at midline were imperfect, most reasonably aligned with the Ghanaian legal definition of child trafficking and were therefore not likely to impact the validity of responses to evaluation questions. However, these differences may affect how individual cases are treated by authorities, in particular investigations and prosecutions.

EQ1: Progress Toward Achieving CPC Objectives

A.  Protection – Services for Survivors of Child Trafficking

This section presents findings related to the extent that CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the three objectives of the Ghana CPC project under the protection umbrella:

  • EQ1.a: Provision of comprehensive, gender-sensitive, trauma-informed care and case management services with appropriate community integration and follow up for an increased number of child trafficking victims;
  • EQ1.e: Establishment and implementation of procedures for pro-active identification and removal of children from trafficking situations, including children in forced child labor in the fishing industry; and
  • EQ1.f: Establishment and operation of a systematic referral mechanism with protocols for timely interagency response to suspected cases of child trafficking.
Provision of Services

One of the objectives of the CPC is to expand the availability and provision of comprehensive quality services for victims of all forms of child trafficking. To this end, the CPC aims to build government capacity to develop, provide, and fund services, provide training for government personnel related to survivor care and services, and enhance NGO services.[34] During its field work in Ghana, the ET conducted site visits at four shelters (3 active, 1 public and 2 private, serving a total of 115 children in residence (88 of whom were victims of trafficking) and 1 public shelter under renovation which had not yet re-opened. Based on TIP Office guidance and overall time constraints, the ET did not interview survivors or their families about service provision,[35] and the evaluation team did not directly observe services provided to survivors. Through 61 KIIs/GIs and 2 FGDs, the ET determined interviewees’ knowledge about the existence of services and their perceptions about the availability, accessibility and quality of services.

Service Providers

Twenty-eight respondents (19 in target regions, and 9 in comparison regions) stated that they or their agency directly served victims of child trafficking. This included a wide range of interventions and services that varied substantially between respondents from DSW (11), GPS (9, including 4 from Anti Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) and one from judicial police (JUPOL), GIS (3), shelters (4), and non-shelter NGOs (1).

Eleven of 14 respondents from DSW – 7 in target regions, 4 in comparison regions – said that they provided services for victims of child trafficking, including providing hygiene supplies, helping with shelter placement, counseling, and assistance during reintegration. Shelter providers also mentioned DSW as a partner in placing survivors in shelter and facilitating reintegration, and one noted that DSW certifies shelters and then contracts for services with certified shelters.

Law enforcement and immigration officials also noted that they rely on DSW to place children in shelters. They also indicated that delays in placements result in they themselves providing food, clothing, mattresses, and incidentals for survivors immediately following identification and removal of victims from exploitative situations. They said they provided these basic needs using their personal resources, and based on goodwill, rather than as a function of their role or prescribed duty. “[Police] do well with the little resources they have – they support [child VOTs] from their own pocket” (target region, State Attorney). One police officer noted that female officers and the wives of male officers sometimes cared for survivors, even taking them home until they could be placed in a shelter or returned to parents. “Our officers even give money from their own pocket, buy food, and shelter VOTs in their own homes” (comparison region, GIS).

Shelter Services

The TWG reported that they had completed a directory of shelters and placement locations in 2017. Respondents did not mention knowledge of this directory, though some noted that a directory would be useful. When asked if they were aware of any shelters that served victims of child trafficking, in 31 KIIs/GIs (n=61), (22 in target regions, 9 in comparison regions), respondents could name one or more places, including government shelters (two mentioned, a total of seven times), private shelters (five mentioned, a total of 22 times), and 10 other places, most of which were orphanages. Social workers were somewhat more likely to know of shelters than other respondents (40% of IP/NGOs, 50% MELR: 63% MoGCSP/DSW, 46% MOI/GPS/GIS and 50% MoJAGD). There was an overall perception of a lack of available shelters, especially at the regional and district level. Regional and district levels officials in both target and comparison regions, indicated a need for a shelter closer to them. After substantial delays, renovations at the Madina shelter in Accra are nearing completion and beds for 20 female and 20 male child victims of trafficking will be available.   This will help to ease the burden on existing shelters, but some shelter operators feared it could also mean sharing scarce funding with another provider.  As was similarly reported at baseline,[36] private shelters were better resourced than public shelters. The CPC Semiannual Data Report of MoGCSP showed that the public shelter received 8,000 GHS (about USD 1,700) a year for non-salary expenses, while one respondent noted that a private shelter spent several times that for a one-day event. Nonetheless, respondents from both public and private shelters reported resource constraints.

The ET visited four shelters (2 public, 2 private). During interviews with key staff, the ET asked about services provided to child trafficking victims.  These findings are presented below:[37]

Eligibility criteria for entering private shelters varied. Some accepted children through age 16, and young children were co-mingled with teenagers. One shelter strategically chose to limit entry to ages 7-17, citing that their specialized services were aimed at empowering youth, and under age seven required more labor-intensive oversight and higher staff/survivor ratios.  Only public shelters served survivors of both sex and labor trafficking, limiting shelter availability for victims of child sex trafficking. The public shelter in Accra also served street children who were co-mingled with child victims of trafficking. This was also the case at the time of the baseline assessment.[38] One IP/NGO explained that specialized skills were needed to effectively work with survivors of sex trafficking, and this was outside of their level of expertise, so they had made a strategic decision not to admit victims of sex trafficking for residential care.  The other noted that personnel were not trained to work with victims of sex trafficking and found that it was not easy for them, so they reintegrated the few they assisted quickly and no longer accept sex trafficking victims. This issue will likely be addressed with the opening of the Madina shelter.

Duration of services also varied. For public shelters, the stated goal was to reintegrate survivors, or place them in orphanages within a few months; private shelters took a longer view, with no specific exit deadline, trying to rehabilitate and build-out skills and readiness, catch survivors up to appropriate school grade-levels, and instill both yearning and agency for survivors to continue their education. In general, length of stays tended to be between three to nine months[39], determined on a case by case basis.

Services provided also varied. All four of the shelters visited provided basic necessities in-house, including accommodation, meals, clothing and shoes, and hygiene products.

All shelters provided some form of psychological screening and counseling; two offered expanded psychiatric services, including through partners (such as the Ghana Police Hospital).  While the Westat baseline assessment indicates that there was a scarcity of psychologists,[40] at midline respondents more often mentioned the prohibitive cost as an impediment to providing this service rather than a scarcity of professionals. Two shelters offered medical screening and access to services (through partners such as All Care). One planned to offer medical services. Only one shelter offered legal advice and advocacy services, though the extent of such services was not clear.  All shelters provided some kind of age-appropriate education, both in-house and through public schools; however, one shelter with generally shorter residencies did not enroll children in school. Only private shelters offered life skills and vocational training, but all offered some form of age-appropriate recreation, including crafts and outdoor activities. One of the private shelters operated a 24-hour hotline to provide advice and facilitate emergency intakes. Only private shelters participated in field rescues, one with police and one with or without police accompaniment. Only private shelters performed safety and risk assessments (on in-take and prior to reintegration).  Staff of public shelters rely on DSW staff who work in communities for such assessments. As discussed further below, some DSW respondents stated that they participated in rescue operations and/or performed safety and risk assessments.

Reintegration Services

All respondents who answered questions about reintegration considered reintegration strategies and services to be inadequate.  Some cited staffing constraints, but most cited transport and resource constraints as the main barrier to their work.  There are various agencies involved in reintegrating survivors back to their communities of origin and reuniting them with their parents or guardians.  Principally, police units transport children to their village and home, ideally after preparation with the family and community carried out by some combination of DSW and shelter providers. Only two (one private and one public) of the four shelters visited are involved in survivor reintegration or plan to be; one private shelter indicated that its role in reintegration is to make sure the child is ready, and DSW’s job is to ensure that the family and community are prepared.  One public shelter mentioned that they directly engage in reintegrating street children but not victims of trafficking. Five of 18 DSW staff who work in communities mentioned their role in assessing risks and preparing families before reintegration of survivors.  Three also mentioned their role in post-reintegration follow-up. Only one respondent from DSW acknowledged the role of NGO social workers in reintegration.  In only one interview did respondents specifically mention cases of re-trafficking, though three others mentioned that it was likely, and one mentioned a story he had heard about a voluntary return from a trafficking situation, facilitated by a concerned mother, but the father did not want the child, and returned the boy to the fishing trade within the week.

Table 7. Services Provided by Four Shelters Visited[41]
Service Provided No. of Shelters Providing Service Service Provided No. of Shelters Providing Service
Basic necessities 4 Education / literacy 4
24-hour hotline 1 Life skills mentoring 2
Emergency field response 2 Vocational training 2
Safety / risk assessment 2 Recreation 4
Psychological screening 4 Reintegration 3
Psychological counseling 4 Post-reintegration follow-up 2
Psychiatric services 2 Public awareness 1
Medical/dental/vision  3
Legal advice / advocacy 1 Alternative Dispute Resolution 1

Perceived Quality of Services

During KIIs, respondents were asked how they would rank the quality of services offered by shelters or other service providers.  They were asked to rank such services using a defined scale (1=consistently low, 2=mostly low, 3=mixed, 4=mostly high, 5=consistently high). Out of 16 respondents who ranked government services, the average rank was 3.2 (mixed quality). Out of 22 respondents who ranked NGO or private services, the average rank was 4.3 (mostly high quality).  Similarly, at baseline, respondents ranked the public shelters slightly below adequate and the private shelters better than adequate[42]. When asked if available services were sufficient to meet survivors’ needs, 12 respondents ranked government services at an average of 3.1 (mixed), and 18 respondents ranked NGO and private services at an average of 3.7 (mixed). Overall, both the quality and sufficiency of services were perceived to be higher for NGO and private service providers, but the sufficiency of services for either was not perceived to be as high as respondents said was needed.

At least five respondents indicated that shelters in their area struggle to accept children because they can’t afford to support them; “The NGOs are not well resourced. Even feeding is a problem. This is why they don’t want [the children] to stay there longer – [because] they can’t afford to feed them” (comparison, AHTU). “When you take a child there [to a private shelter] you have to pay for their upkeep” (target region, GIS). The baseline assessment also found resource constraints to be an impediment for shelters.[43]

Gender Issues

When asked whether male and female victims of trafficking were treated differently, whether in shelter or not, 12 respondents from target regions (39%, n=31) and 7 from comparison regions (64%, n=11) said they were. Interviewees mostly referred to the fact that they had separate sleeping quarters.  Those few who perceived differences in treatment mentioned that females received a more sympathetic response, but also mostly acknowledged that sympathy was also common toward younger boys.  Actual services provided were said to be of a similar quality and nature for both boys and girls.

When asked whether victims of labor trafficking received different treatment from victims of sex trafficking, 13 respondents from target regions (48%, n=27) and 15 from comparison regions (71%, n=7) said there was a difference. Overall, a distinction was made several times by first responders and service providers that it was more challenging to work with victims of sex trafficking. Generally, the rationale was a pragmatic one, such as special needs of the victims and limited skill sets of the staff.  Two social workers and three shelter staff stated that victims of sex trafficking often experienced more severe trauma, and this required specialized psychological or psychiatric services.  However, two respondents stated that victims of sex trafficking would negatively influence the other children if they were in the same facility.

Trauma-Informed Approaches

The ET asked a series of questions aiming to determine levels of training and understanding of child-friendly and trauma-informed approaches for working with child survivors, and whether such training and understanding had been utilized to assist victims of child trafficking. While only one respondent (IP/NGO) was able to fully define trauma-informed approaches and describe how these had been systematically incorporated among all staff throughout the organization, most others gave less comprehensive responses but were able to describe something specific about how to work with traumatized children.  Respondents from both target and comparison regions respondents mentioned the following approaches: calming/stabilizing the victim, building trust, assuring safety, and providing lay counseling or professional psychological services as preliminary necessities in working with traumatized children. Many responses were not unlike the findings presented in the baseline assessment, which mentions ‘do no harm’ approaches and “basic social knowledge” in handling victims.[44] Law enforcement often spoke about the need to stabilize victims to improve cooperation, while NGOs and DSW viewed trauma-informed treatment as a way to improve behavior and/or promote healing.

While most interviewees had not yet worked with child victims of trafficking (see Table 25), they had other experience which could be brought to bear. DSW workers often mentioned experience with traumatized children related to child neglect and abuse or other traumatic conditions that they witness in their everyday work.  Respondents in other roles generally described qualities of human kindness and conscientious parenting that could be deployed in working with child victims of trafficking – for example, offering a meal or a place to nap, or giving advice. One police officer cited an incident where he bought clothing for a child who came in naked and in need of a bath.  There was no significant difference by agency or role or between comparison and target region actors.

In terms of training on trauma-informed approaches, 42% (n=53) stated that they had participated in some type of training, including 16 from target regions (48%, n=33), and six from comparison regions (30%, n=20).  In the target regions, this included four from the district level (MELR, GPS and 2 DSW), six from the regional level (DSW, State Prosecutor, ATHU, JUPOL, and two from a public shelter), three from the national level (ATHU, DSW, GIS), and three IP/NGOs.  In the comparison region, two respondents (GPS, DSW) at the district level received training, and four at the regional level (ATHU, State Prosecutor, and 2 from DSW). At the time of the baseline assessment, police were not receiving training on trauma informed approached.[45]

Many of the respondents were not sure who had conducted training. Some mentioned IOM, while others mentioned a variety of organizations (Save the Children, UNICEF, ILO, Ghana Labor Department, and others) and/or had participated in training before the start of the CPC.  All mentioned that training on trauma-informed approaches was typically a part of a broader training on human trafficking or on other topics, such as child-friendly policing.

According to IOM, over 500 government actors participated in training that included chapters from the SOPs, with sections covering child-friendly and victim-centered approaches, psychological support and mental health, PTSD and the impact of trauma on victims, and managing victims during the process of prosecution.

Virtually all respondents who reported they received training (22, n=53) said that it helped them understand how to cope with victims who experienced trauma. They gave examples that indicated that they have some understanding of the impact of trauma on children and youth. They mentioned symptoms of trauma in children that included depression, anger, acting out, mistrust, and inability or unwillingness to connect to others. Three in target regions noted that levels of trauma were typically more severe for victims of sex trafficking, and that they felt less confident in knowing how to work with such victims.  Only six, all from target regions, stated that they had utilized the training. The others had not been able to put the training to use, largely because they had not been involved in a case of child trafficking (see Table 25, below).

Treatment of Survivors

The ET asked questions to gauge perceptions about how victims are treated by other stakeholders and to rank their impressions on a 1-to-5 scale, about such treatment (1=consistently poor, 2=mostly poor, 3=mixed, 4=mostly well, and 5=consistently well).  Forty-five respondents offered a rank for some or all of the six categories of stakeholders (social workers, police, prosecutors and judges, immigration officers, communities, and parents). The average rank was notably the lowest for parents, at 2.7, with communities following closely behind at 2.9, both ranking just below “mixed.” All other stakeholders were ranked on average between 3 and 3.9, ranking just above “mixed.” Fluctuations in the rankings for parents and communities were also the most pronounced, ranging from consistently poor (1) to consistently well (5). The average rank was highest for immigration officials. There was no obvious correlation between the type of respondent and the ranking (i.e. respondents did not necessarily rank their own agency higher than others ranked them). Respondents in target regions gave higher rankings across all categories than respondents in comparison regions.

Table 8. Impressions about Treatment of Survivors (scale 1 to 5, with 5 being optimal)
Category of Service Provider Being Ranked Target Regions Comparison Regions Combined Regions
# Responses Average Rank # Responses Average Rank # Responses Average Rank
Social workers 29 3.9 13 3.2 42 3.7
Police officials 29 3.5 16 2.8 45 3.3
Prosecutors / judges 20 3.4 8 3.1 28 3.3
Prosecutors (only) 1 5.0 2 3.0 3 3.7
Judges (only) 2 3.7 4 3.5 6 3.6
Immigration officials 18 3.9 9 3.7 27 3.9
Communities 27 3.0 13 2.7 40 2.9
Parents / guardians 28 2.7 17 2.5 45 2.6
Identification and Rescue

As a part of the evaluation protocol, respondents were asked if they were involved in identification of potential victims and rescue (removal of a victim from an exploitative situation) during the period between October 2015 and December 2017.  If they affirmed that they were involved in either, a series of additional questions followed to probe into the details, methods and procedures utilized. Out of a total of 62 respondents, 18 said that they had been involved in identification and / or rescue of a trafficking victim, including 13 (30%, n=43) respondents in target regions and 5 (26%, n=19) in comparison regions.  Agencies involved were DSW (7), GPS (7), GIS (2), and IP/NGOs (2). The majority of respondents (71%, n=62) stated that they were not involved in rescues. This is partly due to the respective roles of respondents; however, many said they would take part in identification or rescue, but had not encountered a suspected case of child trafficking (see Table 25). Others, especially labor officers, said they lacked resources and transportation to make site visits needed to identify potential victims outside of locations close to their offices.  The baseline assessment also found resource issues to be a constraint to conducting rescues.[46] Vehicles provide through the CPC to AHTUs in target regions has partially addressed this issue at midline, though resources for fuel and other transportation expenses remain. The table below summarizes responses related to involvement in identification and rescue between October 2015 and December 2017.

Table 9. Respondents’ Involvement in Identification and Rescue[47]
Protocol Question Level of Involvement Target Regions

(n=43)

Comparison Regions

(n=19)

Number of Affirmative Answers (“Yes”) Number of Affirmative Answers (“Yes”)
Were you involved in identifying and/or rescuing victims of child trafficking during the period of October 2015 to December 2017? National 3 N/A
Regional 4 4
District 6 1
Total 13 (30%) 5 (26%)
Number of Negative Answers (“No”) Number of Negative Answers (“No”)
National 6 N/A
Regional 14 6
District 10 8
Total 30 (70%) 14 (74%)

Those who mentioned the type of cases they suspected or identified (n=11) mentioned, in order of frequency, forced labor in fishing on Lake Volta, trafficking for commercial sex (including four Nigerian girls), domestic servitude, mining, cattle herding, street selling or selling drugs, cocoa framing or forced marriage of minors. Both baseline surveys had similar findings,[48] though neither mentioned cattle herding.

Most respondents did not report proactive efforts to identify potential victims of trafficking. Rather, they responded to reports from the public or NGOs, launched an investigation with the rescue of the potential victims and then continued their investigation. Only five respondents, four from target regions (3 GPS, 1 DSW) and one from a comparison region (GPS) stated that they proactively conducted surveillance of suspected trafficking locations (such as fishing areas) to find and rescue victims. Three of the five specifically mentioned working with IJM on these cases. Another noted that the marine police were now patrolling the waters.

At baseline Westat reported that investigation had been pushed off on NGOs: “In theory, GPS is meant to investigate the crime. However, the experience of many NGOs and shelters is that the NGO is the only entity that follows-up and traces the perpetrators, sometimes with help from the police.”[49] This was no longer a finding in CPC target regions, although one respondent stated that, “Most of the time [name of NGO] rescues and [then informs] the police” (target region, GPS). However, reliance on NGOs remains, especially for financial support. “If we have a case we write to IOM to tell them we need support for fuel and other things” (target region, GPS).

In FGDs with two communities targeted by the CPC, participants discussed the voluntary return of children. They described a community-based process, not involving any authorities. “Usually when the child is trafficked it is for 100 Ghana [Ghanaian cedis – approximately $23]. This could be for 3 or 4 years of work. Sometimes the traffickers ask for the money back when they return the child. The CCPC say that they will calculate how much he should pay for the work the child has done over all those years and that usually settles it” [The child is returned home, but no money is paid either to or from the trafficker].  In another FGD, community members said that they threaten to inform authorities if the trafficker does not release the children.

Cases and Victims Identified and Rescued

For those who stated they were involved in identification and rescue since Oct 2015 (n=18), only 12 respondents from regional and district levels (6 in target regions, and 6 in comparison regions) gave estimates on the number of cases (6+ cases, involving at least 70 children in the target regions; 10 cases involving at least 163 children in the comparison regions). Virtually no one was certain, and some estimated the number of victims and not the number of cases. One national level AHTU respondent estimated that 460 victims were identified during the period between October 2015 and December 2017. The ET did not verify this data, and it is important to note that respondents were not asked to consult data reports during the interview. It should also be noted that interviews took place with a limited number of key stakeholders and in only five regions of Ghana, which necessarily results in gaps or may result in duplication if respondents in separate interviews worked on the same case.

Table 10. Trafficking Victims Identified – GoG National Data[50]
Year Type of TIP Lead Agency Victims Identified Sex of Victims Age of Victims Nationality of Victims
Male Female Child Adult Ghanaian Foreigner
2017 Forced Labor GPS 310 217 93 188 122 310 0
GIS 203 0 203 2 201 194 9
MoGCSP 3 0 3 1 2 3 0
DSW/Wa 17 15 2 17 0 17 0
DSW/Brong Ahafo 2 2 0 2 0 2 0
DSW/Volta/ North Tongu 3 3 0 3 0 3 0
TOTAL 538 237 301 213 325 529 9
Sex TIP GPS 29 0 29 2 27 17 12
GIS 12 0 12 2 10 1 11
TOTAL 41 0 41 4 37 18 23
Total 2017 579 237 342 217 362 547 32
2016 Forced Labor GPS  112  –  – 28  –  –
GIS 40 2 38 7 33
TOTAL 152 2 38 35 33 0 0
Sex TIP GPS  9  –
GIS  –  –
TOTAL 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sex & Labor GPS  –  –  –
GIS 1 0 1 0 1  –
TOTAL 1 0 1 0 1  –
Total 2016 162 2 39 35 34  –

Data for CPC indicators provided by the Human Trafficking Secretariat (HTS) show a total of 71 child victims identified in target regions during 2017 (data for the prior period is not provided), including 19 child victims in Volta, 36 in Central, and 16 in Greater Accra.[51]  Data for the comparison regions was not available. Comparison can therefore only be made to national data. The table above presents national data provided by the GoG to the TIP Office for the annual TIP Report. The data show a marked increase in the number of child victims identified, from 35 victims in 2016, to 217 victims in 2017. If 71 of these are from the target regions, this means that the three target regions combined make up 33% of the total number of victims identified in the country in 2017. The table above also demonstrates that the majority of victims reported in national statistics are reported from GPS, followed by GIS, with MoGCSP and DSW also reporting cases.

Child Victims Not Rescued

When respondents were asked whether they knew of any potential victims or cases of trafficking that had been reported but where victims had not been rescued, seven respondents (5 (12%) in target regions, 2 (11%) in comparison regions) said that they were aware of such instances.  Each cited varying reasons and situations: one noted that the child was sent back to parents; two said the victims had been moved to another area on Lake Volta or deep into the forest and could not be found; one group of children claimed not to be trafficked and therefore were not rescued; specifics were not given in two other cases cited.  One respondent noted that he did not have the authority to act unless he had clear proof that the case was trafficking: ‘Some cases you see but they are not fully established – not enough witnesses so there is not an established case. I have seen a lot of such cases. Because they are not established we cannot do anything – we cannot move the child’ (target region, MELR). In another instance, two children who were rescued indicated there were more children on the same island, “but we were not yet organized to rescue them … this was in August and no one has gone back to get them yet” (target region, DSW).[52] A final example was given about an imam who established a madrasa (school for Islamic instruction) and was alleged to be recruiting children, ages 12-15, under ‘suspicious’ circumstances. “[We] took the children to be interviewed separate from the adults… determined probable cause and sent report to HQ… Since 2016, this is being investigated and we keep surveillance on the children” (comparison, GIS).  Responses point to difficulties locating victims in hard-to-access areas, resource constraints (including the need for boats and fuel to pursue rescues on Lake Volta), and delays that inhibited proactive responses to suspicious      circumstances.

B. Prosecution – Child Trafficking Cases

This section presents findings related to the extent that CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the prosecution objective of the Ghana CPC project:

  • EQ1.b: An increased number of successful investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of forced child labor and child sex trafficking.

Critical to the success of the CPC is enhanced investigation and prosecution, accomplished through development of, training on, and use of SOPs.  The ET’s interview protocol included multiple questions aimed to gauge both respondent perceptions and practices throughout the investigation and prosecution. A total of 62 KII/GI respondents answered some or all questions in this series.

1. Investigation of Child Trafficking Cases

Principally, the AHTU and GIS are responsible for conducting investigations of suspected cases of child trafficking, though other police, DSW workers, NGOs, and labor officers are sometimes involved. When asked if they had participated in an investigation of a child trafficking case between October 2015 and December 2017, 13 respondents (28%, n=47) said that they had.  No significant difference was found between target region respondents (9, 28%, n=32) and comparison region respondents (4, 27%, n=15). The table below summarizes responses from those individuals who answered questions about participation in investigations.

Table 11. Respondents’ Involvement in Investigation of Child Trafficking Cases
Respondent Institution Target Regions Comparison Regions Target and Comparison Regions
Involved Not involved Involved Not involved
MoI/GPS/GIS 5 7 3 3 18
MoJAGD 0 2 0 2 4
DSW 2 3 0 3 8
MELR 0 8 1 3 12
IP/NGO 2 3 0 0 5
TOTAL 9 23 4 11 47

Respondents were less clear about the number of cases investigated and did not consult reports during the interview. Nonetheless, at least 21 cases were mentioned in the target regions (16 in Volta and 5 in Greater Accra), and 6 in comparison regions (5 in Ashanti and 1 in Eastern).  According to HTS, 32 cases of child trafficking were investigated during 2017 in the CPC target regions (data for the prior period was not included).[53]

National data, shown in Table 12 below, does not break down the number of investigations for child trafficking versus trafficking of adults, and does not isolate CPC target regions. While the data shows an overall decrease in the number of human trafficking investigations between 2016 and 2017, it also shows a sizeable increase in the number of child victims involved in those investigations. In 2016, 137 human trafficking investigations involved only seven child victims, and in 2017, 113 cases investigated involved 196 children.

Table 12. Trafficking Investigations – GoG National Data[54]
Year Type of TIP Lead Agency Investigations Victims Sex of Victims Age of Victims Nationality of Victims
Male Female Child Adult Ghanaian Foreigner
2017 Forced Labor GPS 74 310 217 93 188 122 310 0
GIS 18 203 0 203 4 199 194 9
TOTAL 92 513 217 296 192 321 504 9
Sex TIP GPS 17 29 0 29 2 27 17 12
GIS 4 12 0 12 2 10 1 11
TOTAL 21 41 0 41 4 37 18 23
Total 2017 113 554 217 337 196 358 522 32
2016 Forced Labor GPS 114
GIS 18 40 2 38 7 33
TOTAL 132 40 2 38 7 33
Sex TIP GPS 4
GIS
TOTAL 4
Both GPS
GIS 1 1 0 1 0 1
TOTAL 1 1 0 1 0 1
  Total 2016 137 41 2 39 7 34

In 32 KIIs/GIs, respondents mentioned a number of constraints that prevent successful investigations. Seven spoke about a lack of resources (5 target region, 2 comparison region; 4 of 7 were from GPS, 1 each from DSW, GIS and MoJAGD), though some noted that NGOs sometimes help provide cash and in-kind resources. Respondents specifically pointed to the need for transportation (vehicles, boats), and/or for travel and per diem funds to pursue cases, as well as funds to help with the immediate need for basic necessities for victims (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). One cited the need for computers, copiers, video-recorders or cameras in order to build and store evidence for subsequent prosecution.  In eight KIIs/GIs, respondents mentioned that it was difficult to get witnesses to come forward, which also thwarted investigation.  Corruption and political pressure were mentioned in six KIIs/GIs (all in the target regions) with respondents talking about politicians pressuring police to drop cases and perpetrators making bribes to get police to drop the investigation.  Only one respondent mentioned perpetrators giving money to the family of a child victim to withdraw their complaint. Respondents (7KIIs/GIs) also noted that the length of investigation and court processes were a hindrance to the success of the case and problematic for victims, including 2 respondents who noted that children are kept in shelters longer than necessary to ensure their presence in court (both target regions, 1 DSW and 1 IP/NGO): “Courts delay the process. Case of 20 children, still in court after one year.  Children cannot go back to school.”[55] (IP/NGO). In ten interviews (7 in target regions, 3 in comparison regions), respondents said that the charges were changed to something other than human trafficking, in most cases to exploitative child labor charges. Some didn’t know why, others pointed to a lack of sufficient evidence for trafficking and some to different interpretations of the definition of child trafficking.  “The [MoGCSP] rescued a number of children last year and tried to prosecute – in the end they were prosecuted as child labor because no one would testify” (target region, MELR). “[We had] 20 VOTs/15 dockets, charged under hazardous work, child exploitation, etc. That is the AG’s advice. The child has to be sold, usually abroad, internationally or sale of child for [it to be] trafficking” (comparison region, GPS).

2. Arrests of Child Trafficking Suspects

Government actors in law enforcement, immigration, justice, social welfare and labor, as well as NGOs, were asked if they had been involved in arrests of suspected child traffickers between October 2015 and December 2017.  A total of 47 respondents answered the question, with 11 (10 in target regions, 1 in a comparison region) saying they were involved in at least 40 arrests.  When asked if the process of arrest had changed over the past two years, only five respondents shared an opinion – two from GPS in target regions said things had changed. One said that the vehicles provided through CPC support helped and the other said that training had an impact but did not say exactly how. Three said that the process of arrest had not changed, two from target regions, one from a comparison region. The table below summarizes responses related to involvement in arrest of suspected perpetrators.

Table 13. Respondents’ Involvement in Arrest of Suspected Child Traffickers
Role of Respondent Target Regions Comparison Regions
Involved Not involved Involved Not involved
GPS 5 5 0 6
GIS 1 1 1 0
MELR 0 8 0 3
MoJAGD 0 1 0 2
DSW 2 3 0 4
IP/NGO 2 3 0 0
TOTAL = 47 10 21 1 15

Reasons cited as constraints in making arrests included interference from parents, community members, or authorities, insufficient initial evidence or poor descriptions of the perpetrator by witnesses, bribes by perpetrators, and unwillingness of communities to cooperate. One DSW worker, noted that perpetrators “are fast and intelligent and it takes tact and care to arrest them.” One respondent from a different region said perpetrators “run away and community members are not ready to give out information.”  Lack of funds was also seen as an obstacle, as transportation and incidental costs were vital to carry out an arrest, and when such funds were not available, this was a roadblock in pursuing and arresting alleged perpetrators.

Despite these stated constraints, according to the HTS report on CPC progress, 24 suspects were arrested for child trafficking in target regions in 2017 (data for prior years was not available).[56] While comparable data was not available for the comparison regions and arrest data was not available at the national level, national data shows that there were 56 defendants in human trafficking prosecutions nationwide for 2017.[57]

3. Prosecutions and Convictions Related to Child Trafficking Cases

Child trafficking cases can be prosecuted by a State’s Attorney who is part of the MoJAGD, a police prosecutor within JUPOL, or by a GIS-designated prosecutor. Labor officers and social workers can report suspected cases to the police or State’s Attorney. When respondents were asked if they had been involved in the prosecution of a case of child trafficking within the past two years, 10 respondents said they had been involved, seven from target regions, three from comparison regions. In the target regions, this included four respondents from GPS (AHTU 2, JUPOL 1, DOVVSU 1), two State’s Attorneys, one respondent from GIS.  In the comparison regions, this included two State Prosecutors and one respondent from GPS (AHTU).  Though respondents were not definitive about the number of cases or times they were involved in prosecutions over the last two years (i.e. some said they were not sure, while others answered ‘many’), together respondents were able to cite with some certainty at total of 15 cases, all in target regions, including 11 in Volta.  No one answered a follow-on question about how many convictions had resulted.

Data from the HTS, in Table 14 below shows a new pipeline of prosecutions commencing in 2017, as well as prosecutions carried over from prior year(s).  It also shows that out of 25 cases sent to the Attorney General (AG) for review of charges, none were charged as trafficking, though possible charges in five cases had not yet been decided.

Table 15 below shows the number of prosecutions throughout Ghana in 2016 and 2017.  The number of prosecutions initiated, and defendants prosecuted has notably increased from 11 prosecutions involving 11 defendants in 2016, to 29 prosecutions involving 56 defendants in 2017. However, the table does not disaggregate child trafficking cases from adult cases and does not distinguish CPC target regions from other regions in Ghana.

Table 14. Child Trafficking Prosecutions and Convictions – CPC Target Regions in 2017[58]
Stage of Prosecution Volta Greater Accra Central TOTAL
# of child trafficking suspects prosecuted during reporting period[59] 7 18 2 27
# of child trafficking suspects involved in ongoing prosecutions from prior period 6 16 2 24
# of child traffickers convicted during reporting period 1 1 2
# of child traffickers convicted this reporting period, prosecuted by TIP-trained police prosecutors 1 1 2
Charges Recommended by AG Based on Review of Docket Dockets AG Charges # TIP Charges
# child trafficking suspect docket files submitted for consultation with AG 25 14 child labor; 3 ‘child stealing’; 2 further investigation; 3 pending AG advice; 3 discontinued 0
Table 15. Human Trafficking Prosecutions – GoG National Data[60]
Year Type of Trafficking Lead Agency Total Prosecutions Total Defendants Number Began in Prior Years
2017 Forced Labor GPS 19 42 0
GIS 2 3 1
AG 1 1 0
TOTAL 22 46 1
Sex TIP GPS 7 10 0
GIS 0 0 0
AG 0 0 0
TOTAL 7 10 0
Total 2017 29 56 1
2016 Forced Labor GPS 5 5 30
GIS 3 3 0
AG 0 0 1
TOTAL 8 8 31
Sex TIP GPS 3 3 3
GIS 0 0 0
AG 0 0 0
TOTAL 3 3 3
Total 2016 11 11 34

The table below shows data on convictions related to human trafficking for victims of all ages, and throughout Ghana.  There is an increase in convictions under the Human Trafficking Act of 2005, as amended, from zero in 2016, to six in 2017.  The table also shows convictions for cases investigated as suspected trafficking but prosecuted under other statutes.

Table 16. Trafficking Convictions – GoG National Data (2016-2017)[61]
Year Type of Trafficking Lead

Agency

HT Act Convictions Children’s Act Illegal Recruitment Agency Prostitution Immigration Act
2017 Forced Labor GPS 4 1 0 0 0
GIS 0 0 0 0 3
AG 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 4 1 0 0 3
Sex TIP GPS 2 0 0 0 0
GIS 0 0 0 0 0
AG 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 2 0 0 0 0
Total 2017 6 1 0 0 3
2016 Forced Labor GPS 0 1 0 0 0
GIS 0 0 3 0 0
AG 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 1 3 0 0
Sex TIP GPS 0 0 0 2 2
GIS 0 0 0 0 0
AG 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 2
Total 2016 0 1 3 2 2

Constraints to Prosecution

Whether involved in prosecution or not, respondents in 32 KIIs/GIs (GPS (11), DSW (8), MoJAGD (5), MELR (3), IP/NGO (3), GIS (2)) offered opinions about some of the constraints hampering current prosecution efforts. Sometimes this amounted to finger pointing in comments such as “poorly constructed dockets” or judges who “do not appreciate the elements of child trafficking.” Overall, comments principally fell into three categories. These are: 1) lack of cooperation from victims, witnesses and communities; 2) resource and expertise challenges; and 3) undue influence from authorities, politicians, or others, including corruption.  One respondent effectively summarized other constraints: “Witnesses are afraid to come forward and testify. There are so many adjournments of child trafficking cases that discourages the witnesses” (target region, GPS). These constraints are described in more detail below. Westat identified similar issues in the baseline assessment.[62]

Table 17.  Perceptions of Constraints to Prosecution of Child Trafficking Cases
Constraints Impacting Prosecutions Target Regions Comparison Regions TOTAL
KIIs National IP/NGOs / FGDs KIIs
Constraints (overall) 16 4 3 9 32
Lack of cooperation 6 1 0 1 8
Lack of consensus whether case is TIP 4 2 1 3 10
Influence/corruption 3 2 1 0 6
Lengthy court processes 2 1 1 3 7
Other comments 14 4 2 7 27

Lack of cooperation in various forms was cited in at least eight KIIs/GIs: reticent community members who would not share information, victims who did not agree that they were a victim of trafficking and thus did not cooperate, parents who interfered or blocked the process, and witnesses and victims who were afraid to testify believing they could not be protected or fearing perpetrators would ultimately be set free. Others noted that victims are reluctant to testify due to close family and community ties with perpetrators as well as resource constraints that make showing up in court prohibitive: “Prosecuting these cases demands a lot of work. There are close family ties involved – witnesses may be unwilling. For those who are willing it takes a lot of resources – [they must] travel a long distance” (target region, MoJAGD).

Lack of consensus of whether a case qualifies as human trafficking was seen by some as a constraint to prosecution. Some respondents believed that human trafficking cases were prosecuted under other statutes because of a misunderstanding of human trafficking. As one respondent stated, “A child has to be sold, usually abroad, internationally, or sale of a child for it to be TIP,” (comparison region, GPS). Other cases were dropped due to a lack of movement (see discussion in Definition section above): “We looked at the docket the police provided and it was insufficient to charge with traffickingBecause of poverty the father sent the children out to some neighbors to do fishing. Not trafficking because they were in the same locality as the father – but it was child labor as there was exploitative labor (target region, MoJAGD).

Resource challenges, mentioned multiple times, included the recurring theme of transportation of victims and witnesses and the associated costs, language barriers and the need for interpretation, as well as time and personnel constraints. Two respondents noted that IJM helped by bringing witnesses to court. Expertise gaps were also cited by several respondents, including two who said that judges were not always informed about the elements that constituted trafficking, and ten who noted that State Attorneys were changing or reducing charges or charging under statutes other than the Human Trafficking Act of 2005 (which some State Attorneys said was because of inadequate evidence). One respondent felt that JUPOL officers lacked the necessary skills to try human trafficking cases and may pursue them as lesser crimes. Three respondents thought a specialized court for child trafficking might improve quality and mitigate delays and a fourth respondent implied that a specialized court would ensure that cases went before judges experienced in handling human trafficking cases. However, one respondent, indicated that there were probably not enough cases yet to warrant a specialized court. One respondent also noted that some sex trafficking of girls had been renamed labor trafficking, possibly as a way to deny the sexual aspect, or to reduce stigma. One social worker, making a point about treatment of victims, said, “Police are not doing a good job and social workers should do the prosecution – sometimes TIP cases involving children should not be done in open court.

Corruption: Lastly, seven respondents noted two forms of corruption as a problem.  Six respondents pointed to interference with investigations and/or prosecutions using power or influence by persons of authority, including politicians.  Another mentioned bribery as an issue thwarting prosecutions, including perpetrators bribing the families of victims, and sometimes bribing actors in the justice system.

C. Prevention – Awareness Efforts to Reduce Child Trafficking

This section presents findings related to the extent that CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the following two prevention objectives of the Ghana CPC project:

  • EQ1.d: Increased public awareness of the nature of child trafficking, its devastating impact on children, and the importance of prevention; and
  • EQ1.h: The increased use of livelihood options for families with children at risk of trafficking or removed from trafficking situations.

The GoG and USG acknowledge in the CPC Partnership that the cultural acceptance of informal fostering of children by extended family members exposes many children to abuse and exploitation and undermines reporting of such abuse and cooperation with law enforcement and social welfare efforts to intervene to protect children.[63]  To address this cultural context, public awareness activities were included in the CPC.  This section concentrates on public outreach strategies and activities, including community-based efforts, aimed at increasing public awareness of the nature and harmful impact of child trafficking and appropriate responses.

Virtually all KIs interviewed across all roles were asked their opinion about public awareness efforts and activities aimed to bring attention to child trafficking and prevent its occurrence. They were also asked if they thought public awareness activities had advanced or accelerated over the past two years, and whether activities were effective. FGDs in communities also included some discussion of awareness raising interventions in their community. A total of 82 respondents from 67 KIIs/GIs/FGDs were invited to share their perspectives on public awareness. While not every respondent answered every question posed, most respondents had opinions that they were eager to share on this topic.

When asked if there had been a change in public awareness, significantly more respondents in target regions said there had been a change in public awareness of child trafficking (34 or 83%;(n=41) than respondents in comparison regions (9 or 36%; n=25).  Similarly, those in CPC target regions were more aware of awareness raising activities in their area or nationally (27 or 87% in target regions (n=31), and 12 or 57% in comparison regions, n=21). Respondents across both target and comparison regions cited a number of awareness-raising activities and social marketing campaigns, using a variety of means – billboards, stickers, flyers, dramas, speeches and discussion forums – and a myriad of delivery channels, including churches and mosques, schools, television, radio, transit stops, and community and grassroots ‘durbars’ (a large and formal community meeting involving various stakeholders including chiefs, opinion leaders and community members). One IP/NGO mentioned that local assemblies have anti-trafficking awareness activities in their plans. Several respondents mentioned classroom education on child trafficking – either that it existed or that it should. One suggested that the Ministry of Education should be a part of the Human Trafficking Management Board (HTMB) and that Ghana should include standard curriculum on awareness of trafficking in schools.[64] In 21 KIIs/GIs, respondents also noted that their office/agency was engaged in public awareness activities (IP/NGOs: 4, DSW: 5, GIS: 2, GPS: 7, MELR: 3). In target regions this included six respondents at the national level, six at the regional level and four at the district level (total 16).  In comparison regions, the breakdown was three at the regional level and two at the district level (total 5).

Many of the public awareness activities mentioned were not implemented as a part of the CPC.  Not all respondents could remember the source of awareness campaigns they mentioned, but those who did cited pulpit messages by individual pastors and imams; campaigns by UNICEF, Care International, Friends of the Nation, World Vision, Village of Hope; campaigns on public transport and at transit stops; the Blue Day campaign; a GIS campaign; and campaigns or programs on television and by public officials, including the President. The extent to which these activities are funded through the GoG is unknown. However, the MELR did report that they undertake awareness-raising campaigns on child labor as part of the CPC.[65]

Table 18. Respondents’ Perceptions about Public Awareness of Child Trafficking
Protocol Question Target Regions % Comparison Regions %
Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Change in awareness in last two years? 34 7 83% 9 16 36%
Knowledge of awareness activities? 27 4 87% 12 9 57%
Current awareness activities effective? 23 3 88% 4 8 33%
Public more aware of child TIP? 30 3 91% 5 5 50%
Protocol Question Yes Level Yes Level
Agency/organization engaged in public awareness activities? 17 National 3 5 National
Regional 7 Regional 3
District 7 District 2

Effectiveness of Public Awareness Activities

Many respondents felt that public awareness activities were generally effective, though many offered suggestions to improve and expand awareness activities. Respondents in target regions, 23 (88%, n=26) said that efforts were effective, while only four (33%, n=12) in comparison regions felt that current public awareness activities were effective.

Twenty-six respondents (24 from target regions, 2 from comparison regions) gave examples of the success of awareness raising efforts, noting that communities were beginning to change their way of thinking and some communities are now acting as watchdogs and reporting suspected cases of child trafficking (7 KIIs/GIs/FGDs). Some noted that they had become more watchful and now ask probing questions when children are seen travelling alone or with adults who seemed unfamiliar to the children (4 KIIs/FGDs). Participants from one FGD described a film that left a particularly poignant impression on villagers when they saw images of children abused in the fishing trade. Community FGD participants stated that the CCPC members speak at churches and mosques and even go house to house explaining the risks of sending children away to work and encouraging parents to send their children to school. Participants in both community FGDs said the work of the CPC in their community has prevented children being trafficked and has led to the return of several children.

Need for More Community-Level Interventions

When asked, in most (49) KIIs/GIs/FGDs respondents had suggestions on ways to expand or enhance awareness efforts (31 from target regions, 66%; and 18, 90% from comparison regions).  The most common suggestion was the need to emphasize district and village-level activities (31 KIIs/GIs/FGDs, 17 from the target regions, 14 from comparison regions), and more intentionally and pervasively engage village and faith leaders.  One respondent in a target region cited that public awareness efforts using television and radio are not reaching the right audience: “The villages where people are being deceived are not reached; need to go on the ground and do more participatory action themselves” (IP/NGO). Other suggestions ran the gamut – addressing messages, methods and delivery channels.  Some respondents suggested that messages emphasize the penalties for trafficking or appeal to youth using comedy and cartoons; others simply suggested more repetition using existing messages. Some offered ideas about focusing on bus and truck stations, schools, markets, village chiefs, or faith leaders.

Table 19: Respondents’ Reporting a Need for More Local-Level Awareness-Raising Interventions
Agency/Organization Number of KIIs/GIs/FGDs indicating need for more local-level awareness-raising Total KIIs/GIs/FGDs (n) Percent
IP/NGO 2 3 67%
MoGCSP/DSW 9 10 90%
MOI/GIS/GPS 10 21 48%
MELR 6 9 67%
MoJAGD 3 4 75%
FGD 1 2 50%
TOTAL 31 49 63%

Several respondents emphasized that campaigns need to address cultural norms around sending children off to work, an accepted “traditional way for children to learn a trade,” (IP/NGO).  Awareness, they said, needed to demonstrate that times had changed, dangers had increased, and school education was essential. They further noted that even as changes in cultural norms might advance, that behaviors needed to follow. As one respondent quipped, “attitudes may change, but behaviors will not change overnight,” (IP/NGO).  Some also mentioned the need for visible prosecutions, citing that lack of prosecutions or follow-through had eliminated any deterrent or fear of consequences.

Livelihoods

Respondents in 32 KIIs/GIs offered suggestions to address the deeper roots and push-factors for child trafficking.  They mentioned lack of employment in villages (or seasonal and ad hoc employment at best) and lack of economic options as potent drivers that would not be overcome with awareness efforts alone. Village leadership and peer pressure, they said, was needed to counter-balance economic incentives and needs. Overall, respondents argued for more efforts targeting root causes. Some were aware of CPC and other programs that afforded economic assistance for at-risk or trafficked children and their families, or projects that pressed for enhanced prosecution, but said these efforts were not pervasive enough or sufficient to be broadly effective in preventing child trafficking.

The evaluation protocol included several questions about livelihood assistance which were responded to in 30 KIIs/GIs, but only 16 respondents had knowledge of livelihood options (12 from target regions), with DSW staff (9) and Labor officers (6) being the most knowledgeable about these services. Respondents in 13 KIIs/GIs (n=30) knew about LEAP (10 in target regions (n=25), 3 in comparison regions (n=5).  Each of those who knew about LEAP stated that funds were hard to access, and that eligibility is closed until new funds are released. Moreover, they cited that families of victims of trafficking had no special access to these scarce funds unless they met the eligibility criteria, which does not include being a victim of trafficking. One respondent noted that they submitted names of the families of VOTs to MoGCSP to enroll them in LEAP, but that they are waiting for approval. All respondents who shared their opinion about whether LEAP funds were enough to prevent or impact child trafficking said that funds were too modest to make much of a difference. While few respondents knew of other livelihood assistance programs, at least four NGOs, including two CPC IPs, were said to offer family support, including payment of school fees, stipends, vocational training, and savings and loan mentoring and assistance. One shelter provider stated that they had plans to develop a micro-finance scheme to further assist families of victims. Respondents noted that these funds were also limited, and, though modest even to support the survivor being returned, many families had several children, so the funds spent down very quickly. This is best illustrated by two parents who received assistance through the CPC implementing partners who stated in response to a question about whether the livelihood support they received was sufficient, “It is small” and, “It’s not anything” (FGD, target region). Three respondents shared that cash stipends alone were of little help, and that offering vocational training to help parents become more self-sufficient would be more productive.

D. Partnership – Structured Interagency Collaboration to Address Child Trafficking

This section will present findings related to the extent that CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the following two objectives of the Ghana CPC project, under the Partnership umbrella:

  • EQ1.c: Improved interagency coordination of anti-trafficking efforts
  • EQ1.g: Implementation of mechanisms for data collection designed to monitor indicators of anti-trafficking program outcomes supported through this Partnership and which can be sustained to track key government interventions, such as the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in child trafficking cases and the numbers of child trafficking victims identified

Human Trafficking Management Board

The HTMB is the government’s anti-trafficking inter-ministerial board chaired by the Minister of MoGCSP and is mandated in the Human Trafficking Act of 2005 to meet quarterly. However, it was re-constituted in late 2014, after two years’ hiatus due to lack of funding. The HTMB manages the Human Trafficking Fund (HTF) and, according to the CPC Partnership, includes five subcommittees: 1) Monitoring and Evaluation; 2) Research, Data Collection, Information Dissemination, and Prevention; 3) Legal Framework and Policy Development; 4) Finance and Resource Mobilization; and 5) Rescue, Rehabilitation, and Reintegration.[66]

According to the Human Trafficking Secretariat (HST), the HTMB has not met since the national election in December 2016. With the election of a new government, the HTMB had to be reconstituted. During its discussion with the ET, the TWG stated that new HTMB members have been nominated, but were awaiting presidential approval.[67] They added that until the HTMB is functional, GoG funds designated for anti-trafficking work through the Human Trafficking Fund cannot be released.

Many respondents from national, regional, and district KIIs/GIs were aware of the HTMB, including 73% of respondents in CPC target regions and 44% in comparison regions. Six respondents from the target regions also said they attended HTMB meetings, though some may have confused the HTMB, dormant since late 2016, with TWG meetings, which have occurred quarterly. The table below shows responses regarding awareness of the HTMB by region.

Table 20. Respondents’ Awareness of the HTMB – by Region
Respondent Region/Category Aware of HTMB % Not Aware of HTMB %
Greater Accra 9 82% 2 18%
Central 2 25% 6 75%
Volta 8 73% 3 27%
IP/NGO 5 100% 0 0%
National 6 100% 0 0%
Total Target Regions 30 73% 11 27%
Ashanti 3 43% 4 57%
Eastern 4 44% 5 56%
Total Comparison Regions 7 44% 9 56%

When asked about the purpose of the HTMB, most respondents were not sure, though a few were aware that the HTMB is supposed to coordinate and fund the GoG’s anti-trafficking efforts. In a target region, one respondent said the HTMB was supposed to “manage the human trafficking fund, look at disbursement of the fund, and look at annual reports of partners,” (target region, DSW). At the national level, one respondent stated that, “meetings have been up and down, sometimes regular, sometimes not so regular… they need to reconstitute the board,” (national POC).  Six respondents in target regions and one in a comparison region said the HTMB was not functioning. At least three also cited that the HTMB needed operating funds, to offset the cost of transport to meetings and provide hospitality during meetings. As one national respondent put it, “Sometimes funding was a challenge and meetings [were] not regular,” (national POC).

While the HTMB has not been functioning over the past year, the TWG, established as a working level interagency body to focus on CPC Partnership implementation, has routinely met quarterly according to members of the TWG.  The ET was able to meet the TWG for a FGD that was organized on the same day as a regular TWG meeting.  Sixteen members joined the FGD and all or part of the longer TWG meeting.

A variety of respondents had expectations of, and recommendations for the HTMB and/or the TWG. including three who suggested that the HTMB disburse more funds, two who thought the HTMB should oversee provision of training, three that suggested the TWG could design SOPs for coordination, one that suggested the HTMB organize visits to see shelters, four who wanted the HTMB or TWG to coordinate NGO and GoG cooperation (and also ensure that GoG takes the lead), and three who said the HTMB should be more active.  Two respondents noted that the HTMB and TWG should more equally focus on all regions, and should devote more time to, and even organize meetings at, the local level. Finally, one respondent said the “HTMB should give each organization some funds to support TIP cases … to support victims themselves, for food, clothing, etc.” (national POC). Another respondent in a comparison region noted, “They were supposed to set up a fund so that if there are cases it could be used for it – I don’t know what happened with that” (comparison region, DSW).

Funding and Personnel

To implement its new anti-trafficking national plan of action, in 2017 the GoG committed 1.5 million GHS ($336,400) to combat human trafficking, 500,000 ($112,133) of which is dedicated to the HTF. This is a significant increase over the prior year and is the first-time funds have been allocated to the HTF.  However, due to delays in reconstituting the HTMB, funds have not been released. Under the CPC Partnership, the GoG is supposed to “allocate an annually increasing level of staff resources and operating budget funding to support the ministry’s commitments made in this Partnership.”[68] However, due to the way the funds are accounted for, the Government reports that it is unable to track these resources.

Table 21. GoG Funding and Resources for Combatting Trafficking in CPC Regions[69]
Funding for Human Trafficking 2016 2017
Annual budget for MoGCSP/
HTS & HTMB
25,200 GHS 1,512,314 GHS
Amount to Osu shelter 3,705 GHS 8,000 GHS
Dedicated TIP Personnel 2016 2017 Dedicated TIP Personnel 2016 2017
Personnel MoGCSP/HTS/HTMB 3 3 DSW 0 28
MELR/CLU 0 6 GIS 8 10
AG’S DEPT 0 5 POLICE/AHTU 0 74
Total Personnel 2016 = 11 2017 = 126

The table above also shows personnel dedicated to anti-trafficking efforts in CPC regions.  Any increases in personnel are unknown as 2016 data is mostly unavailable.

Collaboration between Government Departments and NGOs

When asked about NGO–GoG collaboration, 29 of 45 respondents (64%) in target regions said they cooperated across these sectors, while 13 of 23 respondents (57%) in comparison regions also cooperated with their counterparts across sectors. A total of 23 respondents in target regions offered examples of collaboration between various entities, including GPS, DSW, GIS and counterparts within the government of Nigeria, as well as with Ghana-based NGOs such as IJM, Don Bosco, IOM, Madamfo, Engage Africa, and Challenging Heights. Eleven respondents in comparison regions also gave examples of collaboration, mostly between AHTU and IJM and/or Challenging Heights.

One respondent from Volta (a target region) cited collaboration on identification and rescue with IOM. Another from Eastern (a comparison region) mentioned collaboration with IJM, who “organized the training and were part of the team for the rescue; they may have supported the police with funds for fueling and so forth.” In addition, one private shelter mentioned that “one or two staff go along [on rescues]; this makes it possible for staff to explain issues to victims about the shelter before they finally come, and when police come along that allows the shelter to keep children for 7 days until DSW gives the care order. While much of the collaboration between state and non-state actors described by respondents was positive, four respondents stated concerns that CPC Partnership IPs were overstepping their roles in rescuing victims when they did not involve police prior to and during attempted rescue.[70]

Other concerns expressed by respondents related to relationships between the GoG and the CPC IPs.  Two respondents noted that the GoG wished to have more control, including over use of funds (one IP/NGO, one national POC). Another IP/NGO noted that IOM and FTS often lead engagement of stakeholders and push to meet TIP Office timelines. This was echoed by a GoG interviewee who saw negative repercussions: “Some things are only done to meet a J/TIP deadline, and not done well, just rushed through,” (national POC).

Collaboration between Government Departments

A total of 68 respondents answered a KII question about GoG inter-departmental collaboration to address suspected and actual cases of child trafficking. In CPC target regions, 27 respondents (79%, n=34) across all agencies said they did cooperate with other GoG agencies, including the GPS, GIS, DSW, AG, and Labor offices.  Only seven respondents in target regions said they had not cooperated on a case, but generally this was because they had not handled a case of child trafficking.  The same was true for comparison regions, where 16 (or 80%, n=20) said they had cooperated with other agencies.  At the national level, one respondent attributed the collaboration to the TWG, “Collaboration is very effective because of the technical working group. Sometimes you need a rather quick response to issues to work smoothly,” (national POC).  Another said, “The Technical Working Group has made a big difference; if we have a problem in the region, we can speak to the commanders at the TWG…If someone is acting funny [neglecting the case in some way], we call [the HTS] to escalate to the right high-level person in the ministry. This results in action,” (IP/NGO). A lack of communication was mentioned mostly in regard to not knowing the results of investigations and prosecutions for cases in which an individual had been involved.

Data Collection

Under the CPC Partnership the MoGCSP is responsible for monitoring indicators to measure the success of CPC implementation and compiling data to facilitate a strategic response.[71]   According to the HTS and TWG members, the CPC supported development of a template to improve agency reporting of human trafficking cases. Last year IOM supported development of a human trafficking database through a TWG subcommittee. IOM has begun training on use of the database forms and the database has been turned over to the MoGCSP who will lead rollout in target regions after final approval by the ministry. A second subsequent phase will extend the database beyond the target regions. Use of the new database is not yet wholly accepted by all. As one respondent said, “With TIPIS [the CPC supported database] you cannot change anything, you can only collate. The problem with TIPIS is that it is only quantitative,” (target region, GPS).

KII respondents in the field were also asked about data they collect.  Although the CPC supported database had not yet been rolled out, 17 respondents (89%, n=19), including 12 (92%, n=13) in target regions, and 5 (83%, n=6) in comparison regions, said they did collect data required by their departments on child trafficking (for example, police contribute to a crime statistics database). As was noted at baseline,[72] respondents at midline also expressed frustration that they contributed to reports, but did not receive combined or roll-up reports back.

According to national actors, several data collection challenges have emerged, and some have been resolved. “Because of centralization, and regions implementing through GPS, GIS, DSW and Labor, each department needs to report to their mother ministry.  Since CPC, they are supposed to also report direct to the HTMB and the TWG, so that means they must report quarterly and do ad hoc updates [to different places],” (FGD, TWG). Nonetheless, the same participant indicated that the flow of information to the TWG was now stronger.

Additional challenges remain and creating solutions to resolve them is viewed by the TWG as one of its ongoing functions. For example, data flows from the GPS and Labor departments were said to be more complex. One FGD participant noted that, “Police have ten offices throughout Ghana, [and each is] supposed to report data for compilation (district, regional, national), which is all being done by hand; at the same time [this additional data] is limited only to CPC regions.” He cited as progress that, “Most officers are now trained [on data collection needs for CPC].”  A GIS participant noted a similar impediment, as regional GIS personnel “only screen when TIP is suspected and then report and send to their headquarters; without a designated person in each region, the flow is tougher.” A participant from MELR also commented that, “collecting data is done at the local level and roll-up is done on paper, but [they are] looking at the Ghana Labor Systems platform” as a potential solution. One participant in the FGD explained that, “it is a paper-based system throughout, and there are [also] quality assurance issues.” Another cited electricity, connectivity, equipment issues, and IT training issues in regions that had some computers available.  One FGD participant noted the challenge of getting data from NGOs that are not a part of the CPC and suggested that NGO reports mandated for annual registration could require human trafficking data that could be mined by the HTS or MoGCSP. While many challenges remain, the CPC Semiannual Data Report of MoGCSP as well as data submitted to DoS for the annual TIP Report clearly shows more data being collected nationally and in the CPC target regions during 2017 than in prior years.

Apart from shelter staff, virtually no respondents were aware of any reports on service provision specifically for victims of trafficking, except one respondent from DSW who said they sent reports to IJM and DSW headquarters. Respondents from the three functioning shelters visited were aware of MoGCSP data collection templates. One NGO noted that they had their own service statistics, which were more detailed than those they sent to IOM and MoGCSP.

EQ2: Challenges

Naturally, there are challenges inherent in the conception and implementation of any program, and complexity builds in relation to the number and roles of actors involved. The CPC Partnership aims high, seeking to enhance structures, expand capacity and agency, influence behaviors at a variety of levels, and promote sustainability.  To get a better understanding of challenges – both resolved and ongoing – KIIs and GIs as well as FGDs included questions about challenges faced and challenges remaining.  Some findings resulting from those questions are mentioned under the relevant sections above. In this section, overarching challenges are discussed.

Challenges Addressed

Based on interviews with multiple stakeholders at various levels, there has been progress in addressing some challenges, while other challenges remain and continue to be addressed. Eleven respondents offered examples of forward progress to eliminate perceived challenges.  Specifically, respondents noted the following improvements:

  • Less confusion surrounding the definition of child labor versus child trafficking;
  • Advances in funding and resource allocation (including procurement of six vehicles using CPC funds);
  • Increased enthusiasm of GPS and other stakeholders to address trafficking;
  • Better collaboration on rescues;
  • Accelerated awareness of child trafficking among CPC implementers and in some communities; and
  • Better data reporting and flow.

While no one said they considered these issues wholly resolved, all but one of the 11 comments indicated the progress came from CPC target regions.

Challenges Remaining

Lack of Resources: Overall resource and funding issues, mentioned in 44 interviews, were at the top of the list of challenges, including resources for staffing, transportation and operations, and hospitality for community gatherings and TWG meetings. A few respondents named staffing shortages, e.g. for undercover officers, while eight talked about staff capacity and training, for example to improve evidence collection and dockets or ensure trauma-informed care.  Several noted a lack of resources for identification and investigation, naming the need for vehicles, boats and fuel as well as financing for lodging and meals to enable police to chase down suspects or enable social workers to follow-up on reintegrated victims. “Of the two vehicles given to the police AHTU, it would have been better to give one to social welfare. You need to resource all of the stakeholders,” (target region, DSW).

Respondents in six interviews cited resource issues related to reintegration as a challenge, both in terms of transport limitations to arrange integration and monitor its success, but also in terms of the lack of resources to address the root cause of extreme poverty. Unemployment and endemic poverty were repeatedly cited as a challenge, impacting both prevention of trafficking and reintegration of victims. “Sometimes the parents find it difficult to accept the children back. They believe the child is getting proper treatment somewhere else. But when the child returns it is going to be a burden to feed and clothe the child,” (comparison region, DSW)  Stigma was also mentioned as an obstacle in reintegration, “Parents do not want to see you, threaten you and do not want to listen – [they are] afraid the child will pollute the community,” (target region, DSW)  One DSW worker in a comparison region noted, “We are fighting a losing battle. We identify them, we rescue them; they are sent back home and re-trafficked. We have come across children who have been rescued three or four times.”

Funds for victim care were also said to be lacking, and several police and social workers said they used their own funds for emergency needs of victims. Shelters were said to be too few and under-resourced. One respondent noted the need to fund a shelter dedicated to serving victims of sex trafficking. Labor officers without vehicles said inspections were limited to walking distance. Others cited a need for computers, phones, or cameras to facilitate communications and evidence collection, or to produce awareness materials or reports.

Respondents also shared a need to have funds in order to engage communities. As one respondent put it, “Will communities work with you if you do not give them something? Yes, this is a challenge – we give them refreshments not money. We pay them to set up chairs or that kind of thing. But they want to be paid to come and sit there,” (IP/NGOs). Another said, “Communities want funds, ‘If you don’t give us money don’t waste our time.’ People will even walk out,” (target region, DSW).

Cultural Acceptance of Child Labor: A second frequently named challenge to combatting child trafficking in Ghana was the persistence of cultural norms that support sending children to work in exploitative situations, mentioned in at least 15 KIIs/GIs with DSW, GPS, MoJAGD, MELR and IP/NGOs.  While there seemed to be general agreement on CPC approaches to child trafficking among implementers, these same respondents felt that some agencies and communities were not equally enthusiastic about combating trafficking, and outside of the most egregious cases, sometimes did not understand why it was illegal or even wrong. Talking about sending children away to work, one respondent noted, “People grow up with child work and do not see it as a problem,” (IP/NGO). Another said, “Because they have been doing it for long, they think it is right. Even a former MP said there was no child trafficking because he has gone through it [being sent off to work] and has still become an MP,” (target region, DSW).

This cultural practice was apparent from the beginning of the CPC Partnership. The Baseline assessment refers briefly to it[73] as does the CPC Partnership Framework.[74] While respondents noted that the practice continues, FGDs in communities where CPC partners are working indicate that there has been a change in these communities, with fewer parents sending their children away for work and increases in school enrollment: “The committee has also helped reduce the kind of hardships parents put their children through – formerly parents would just send the children away; now that number has reduced…They educate the parents about the need to send the children to school. Enrollment was low, now it is higher…Formerly the children used to loiter around a lot – now they are mostly in school as a result of the work of the CCPC members. Members have the patience to talk with parents who are resistant” (community FGD). 

Traditional Institutions of Justice: Other traditions that were seen to impact the CPC and child trafficking, included the tradition of solving issues within the community, through chiefs or leaders, rather than pursuing justice in courts. Especially police mentioned the difficulty of getting community or parental cooperation in reporting trafficking or giving testimony. One respondent cited that communities kept quiet out of fear and mentioned a concomitant lack of victim/witness protection. “Some people in communities, criminals, like armed robbers, are in the community – the community will not report out of fear,” (comparison region, MELR).

Table 22 below shows the number of KIIs/FGDs in which challenges were mentioned as “overcome” or “remaining.” For remaining challenges, numbers are shown for three main categories cited (funding, cultural norms, and staffing/training).

Table 22. Number of KIIs/FGDs Mentioning Challenges Overcome and Remaining
Respondent Category Challenges Overcome Challenges Remaining Funding / Resources Cultural Norms / Traditions Staffing / Training
KII: IP/NGO 3 7 7 3 2
KII: DSW 1 14 11 2 2
KII: GIS 0 4 3 0 1
KII: GPS 4 19 11 3 2
KII: Labor 0 13 7 1 0
KII: MoGCSP 1 3 2 0 0
KII: MoI 1 1 0 0 0
KII: MoJAGD 1 5 3 1 1
FGD:  CCPC 0 1 0 0 0
TOTAL 11 67 44 10 8
Target Regions 5 31 19 5 2
IP/NGO/National 5 16 12 3 2
Comparison Regions 1 20 13 2 4
TOTAL 11 67 44 10 8

EQ3: Training

The CPC Partnership features training for a variety of stakeholders (social workers, law enforcement, prosecutor, judges, and NGOs). As of February 2018, IOM had organized training for over 500 individuals as shown in the table below.

Table 23. Human Trafficking Training Provided by IOM
IOM Training Topic(s) No. of People Participant Group(s)
Identification / Screening 378 Police (110), Immigration (63), DSW (100), Department of Community Development (57) MELR (47); FTS staff (1)
Investigation / Prosecution 72 Police (36: 23 investigators, 13 police prosecutors); Immigration (26), State Attorneys (10)
Direct Assistance 122 DSW officers
Judicial Training 15 Circuit court judges (12), high court judges (3)
TOTAL 587

Overall, respondents in a total of 37 KIIs/GIs in target regions and 20 KIIs/GIs in comparison regions cited training in one or more areas related to child trafficking. When asked who organized the training, not all respondents could remember, but 36 mentioned IOM. A number of other training sponsors were also mentioned, including IJM, FTS, INGH, Plan Ghana, UNICEF, Terre des Hommes, Challenging Heights, Window of Hope, Women of Dignity Alliance, MELR, DSW, Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU), the police academy, ILO and organizers in Liberia, Sudan, Benin, Botswana and Senegal. Table 24 below shows KIs who answered questions about training, disaggregated by target versus comparison regions.  The table shows the number of interviews (“N”) in which the question was answered, as well as the number of positive “yes” responses and the percentage of yes responses. When asked about topics covered in training courses, respondents mentioned identification and screening (19 target region, 1 comparison region), investigations (4 target region, 2 comparison region) prosecution (seven target region, 1 comparison region), case management and trauma (8 target region, 3 comparison region) and other topics.

Table 24. Respondents’ Feedback on Training, by Region
Type of Training/ Questions Target Regions Comparison Regions
No. of Respondents No. of Affirmative Responses Percentage No. of Respondents No. of Affirmative Responses Percentage
Training on child trafficking           
Had training on child TIP 47 34 72% 25 11 44%
Utilized training 34 33 97% 10 8 80%
Could Benefit from more training 44 36 82% 21 21 100%
Training on trauma-informed approaches
Had training on trauma 33 16 48% 20 6 30%
Utilized training with victims 10 6 60% 3 0 0%
Could benefit from more training 19 19 100% 8 7 88%
Training on SOPs
Had training on SOPs 10 10 100% 2 1 50%
Utilized training on SOPs 8 3 38% 2 1 50%

While it was beyond the scope of this evaluation to rate the quality or effectiveness of any training, respondents were asked whether they had been able utilize the training they received. Notably, as indicated above in Table 24, 97% (n= 47) of respondents in target regions and 80% (n= 10) in comparison regions said they had utilized training on child trafficking, while 60% (n= 10) in target regions and 0% in comparison regions had utilized training on trauma-informed approaches.  Only 38% (n= 8) in target regions and 50% (n= 2) in comparison regions were able to put training on SOPs for investigation and prosecution to use, but many said this was simply because they had not seen a case of child trafficking.  Table 25, below, shows that more than half of respondents in both target and comparison regions had not encountered a suspected case of child trafficking. The data below refers to government respondents only. Additionally, one respondent in a target region who had not had a case of child trafficking mentioned having worked on a case involving an adult victim.

While much of the training provided under the CPC was recently implemented, some respondents did note that training has already had a positive effect.  “It is now better because some prosecutors are now trained in child trafficking issues,” (target region, JUPOL). “It has been stepped up – police have been trained and can do a better investigation. Police are enlightened to look beyond simple cases…and can better establish trafficking” (Target region, State’s Attorney).

Table 25: Respondents’ Involvement in Suspected Cases of Child Trafficking
Region # of Respondents (n) Involvement in Suspected Cases of Child Trafficking
Has had a case Has not had a case Unclear; likely not had a case
National & Target
Greater Accra 11 6 (55%) 5 (45%) 0 (0%)
Central 10 3 (30%) 6 (60%) 1 (10%)
Volta 11 3 (27%) 7 (64%) 1 (9%)
National 7 4 (57%) 3 (43%) 0 (0%)
Total National and Target 39 16 (41%) 21 (54%) 2 (5%)
Comparison
Ashanti 10 3 (30%) 6 (60%) 1 (10%)
Eastern 10 4 (40%) 6 (60%) 0 (0%)
Total Comparison 20 7 (35%) 12 (60%) 1 (5%)

Acknowledging that respondents are often inclined to respond positively to questions about the need for more training, 82% – 100% of respondents affirmed that they or their colleagues would appreciate more training. Others said that training should be decentralized and offered in different regions, “Most are centered in Accra – [they] should be decentralized in regions – and train more people in each region,” (comparison region, GPS). Another noted, “At the national level they handpick favorites to participate,” (target region, GPS). As one respondent put it, “Training has to go all the way down to district level,” (national POC). A fourth argued for training younger line personnel, “Train the younger ones, the next generation.  People invite the old top folks to training and then they retire. Train the rank and file. Instead the top goes to training, especially in the U.S. or abroad,” (target region, GPS).

Several others had suggestions on trainer criteria and needed areas of training.  One cited that, “Technical people are providing specialized training – need people with direct experience,” (IP/NGO).  As a police officer, one respondent felt that NGOs were not experienced in training police, and law enforcement professionals should be engaged as trainers. A few also argued for learning-by-doing training, especially field-based victim identification, screening, rescue and investigation related to an actual child trafficking case, where problem-solving skills could be learned in context and on the job. Lastly, a few respondents suggested that training be done as a training-of-trainers so that they can bring the learning back to their colleagues.

Screening Tools and SOPs for Identification and Screening, Direct Assistance, Referral, Investigation and Prosecution

The CPC project includes work to facilitate development of screening tools and standard operating procedures, provide training on the tools, and promote their use to guide identification, screening, and rescue operations, direct assistance, referral, investigation and prosecution processes, and inter-agency coordination. Though the Standard Operating Procedures to Combat Human Trafficking in Ghana, developed by IOM in collaboration with the GoG, were only recently finalized (October 2017), training was well underway and, according to IOM, over 500 people had been trained at the time of the evaluation interviews.

An equal number of respondents were aware of SOPs as those who were not. As shown in Table 26 respondents from target regions were more likely to know about SOPs than those in comparison regions (investigation and prosecution SOPs: target – 20 (57%, n=35), comparison – 7 (35%, n=20); identification, screening, and rescue SOPs: target – 19 (66%, n=29), comparison – 3 (25%, n=12).  Some of the SOPs mentioned were departmental procedures or processes developed by others, such as IJM, and not the SOPs developed as a part of the CPC.  However, in target regions, the ET saw the CPC-supported SOPs manual on the desks or bookshelves of several respondents, while others pulled them out to show the team.

Some respondents mentioned that they used SOPs in their routine work, though it was not always clear which SOPs they meant.  Several who had not seen a case of child trafficking in their work noted that they knew where to find and how to follow SOPs if they should encounter a case of child trafficking. One national respondent told the ET that the CPC SOPs have helped field officers obtain evidence and better prepare for court and that the SOPs have clarified the role of social workers and improved the referral system. Table 26, below, shows awareness and use of SOPs, including the CPC SOPs when these were specifically noted.

Table 26. Respondents’ Awareness and Use of Standard Operating Procedures
Type of SOP Target Regions Comparison Regions
Aware of SOPs Utilize SOPs Aware of SOPs Utilize SOPs
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Identification, screening and Rescue (n=41)

19

CPC SOPs=6

10 7 4

3

CPC SOPs=0

9 2 1
Investigation and Prosecution (n=55)

20

CPC SOP=9

15 4 4

7

CPC SOPs=0

13 1 1

Respondents were asked if processes had changed since October 2015, when CPC-supported activities began.  As regards identification, screening and rescue, 21 respondents shared an opinion – eight from target regions (50%, n=16) and one from comparison regions (20%, n=5) said that the process had changed, while the others said that it had not. Some of the reported changes included: increased insight and awareness of human trafficking, the importance of recognizing trauma in victims and treating them accordingly, an improved referral process, and clarity on their roles in the identification, screening, and rescue process as exemplified by one social worker: “With this exercise we did, police know their limit. Social welfare, we now know our role with police,” (target region, DSW). Some who stated there had been changes were unable to articulate those changes or gave examples of greater reporting from the public, demonstrating a change in awareness in the public rather than an outcome of the new SOPs.

When asked if the process of investigation had changed, four respondents, all in target regions, said that it had. Respondents in only three interviews – all in target regions – said that the process of prosecution had changed over the past two years. Of these three, one had not yet handled any child trafficking cases, but had handled related cases of child labor. For both prosecution and investigation, respondents could articulate specific examples of how the process had changed. Rather they referred in general to training they received or the vehicles provided through the CPC.  Two, both from GPS, pointed to the fact that prosecutors have now been trained and are better able to handle cases: “Prosecutors have been a part of the course. We liaise with the state attorney – we send directly to the state attorney not to police prosecutors,” (target region, AHTU).   Another respondent, a prosecutor, pointed to the fact that police are now trained and able to do more thorough investigations: “It has been stepped up – police have been trained and can do a better investigation. Police are enlightened to look beyond simple cases… and can better establish trafficking,” (target region, State’s Attorney).

V. Conclusions

The goals and objectives of the CPC are broad and ambitious and set in the framework of a five-year Partnership and implementation plan. While there has been progress to date toward achieving those goals, as described below, it is worth noting that this midline evaluation has come at an early stage in the implementation of some key activities. A number of important activities had only recently been implemented at the time of this evaluation. Roll out and training on the SOPs was done only months prior to the evaluation. Similarly, the new database while completed had not yet been implemented. The refurbishment of the Madina shelter for child trafficking victims was nearly complete but had not yet opened. Additionally, some CPC activities at the national level were delayed due to a change in government after the elections at the end of 2016.  As a result, while CPC activities are moving forward, the outcomes of some activities, and the extent to which they will contribute to achievement of the CPC objectives, is not yet clear or measurable.

Additionally, the comparison regions are of limited use in assessing change in the CPC target regions. First, no data was available for the comparison regions to compare the number of victims identified, investigations undertaken, or prosecutions begun. As well, the comparison regions have not been under a bubble. While the CPC implementing partners have not been active in the comparison regions, others have. In particular, many respondents from the comparison region have worked closely with IJM on child trafficking cases. Through this partnership they have received on the job training for identification and rescue of child trafficking victims as well as for investigation and prosecution of cases.

Despite these difficulties, the evaluation offers critical information about the perceptions of key informants, an analysis of available data, evidence of progress, and a discussion of challenges remaining for CPC implementation.  Progress has been made toward achievement of the CPC objectives. Progress made to date as well as areas which have not changed since the baseline are described below, using the same framework used to present the evaluation findings. The table below also presents midline evaluation findings compared to the baseline on eight issues. The percentage and number of positive responses are shown.

Table 27. Comparison to Baseline for Eight Key Evaluation Questions
Evaluation Questions Baseline Midline
Target Comparison Target Comparison
KIs trained in child trafficking issues

N=35

66% (23)

N=24

63% (15)

N=47

72% (34)

N=25

44% (11)

KIs’ knowledge of screening tools

N=35

31% (11)

N=24

21% (5)

N=29

66% (19)

N=12

25% (3)

KIs’ knowledge of referral mechanisms

N=35

17% (6)

N=24

4% (1)

Combined with screening tools above
KIs’ knowledge of HTMB

N=35

51% (18)

N=24

54% (13)

N=41

73% (30)

N=16

44% (7)

KIs’ knowledge of the CPC Partnership

N=35

29% (10)

N=24

29% (7)

N=44

75% (33)

N=23

39% (9)8

KIs who have worked across GoG/NGO

N=35

37% (13)

N=24

21% (5)

N=45

64% (29)

N=23

56% (13)

KIs’ knowledge of SOPs – generally

N=35

47% (14)

N=24

45% (10)

N/A N/A
KIs’ knowledge of SOPs for screening, identification and rescue N/A N/A

N=29

66% (19)

N=11

27% (3)

KIs’ knowledge of SOPs for investigation and prosecution N/A N/A

N=35

57% (20)

N=20

35% (7)

KIs trained in trauma-informed approaches

N=35

14% (5)

N=24

33% (8)

N=33

48% (16)

N=20

30% (6)

Definition of Human Trafficking

A majority of respondents from both CPC target and comparison regions had a solid understanding of many of the elements of child trafficking and could cite some components in the law.  While only a handful could offer a clear and crisp response that matched all parts of the CPC definition, most could meander their way, thinking aloud and citing incidents, to ultimately demonstrate a general understanding of the definition.

Ghana’s Human Trafficking Act is consistent with international standards and aligns with the definition of child trafficking stated in the CPC Partnership Framework. While the CPC Partnership Framework specifies that ‘human trafficking can include, but does not require, movement,’[75] the Human Trafficking Act of 2005 does not specify movement is required.[76] However, respondents in 77% of interviews (n=53) believe that movement is required, and many stakeholders interviewed were fairly adamant on this point.

In addition, some respondents (25% of KIIs/GIs, n=53) stated that a minor can consent to commercial sexual exploitation by another party.  Ghanaian law states: “Where children are trafficked, the consent of the child, parents or guardian of the child cannot be used as a defense in prosecution under this Act …[77] Many stakeholders view such consent as a basis to dismiss the charge of trafficking but were not all resolute in this opinion stating that they were not sure.

The Westat baseline report, based on interviews conducted in 2016, reported a lack of clarity between child labor and child trafficking: “KIs did not express a clear view or consistent understanding of the definition of forced child labor/child labor trafficking as defined by Ghanaian law.”[78] Such confusion around the definition of child labor versus that of child labor trafficking was not evident during this present evaluation. The Westat evaluation goes on to say that, “Several KIs mentioned that forced child labor can also happen without children being moved, which they considered to be a needed element for trafficking.” Here, it seems stakeholders continue to believe movement is required for a case to be trafficking. Finally, the Westat evaluation states that, “KIs’ definition of child sex trafficking was consistent with the law.[79] As described above, this is not a finding or conclusion shared in this evaluation.

Protection

National data demonstrates impressive increases in identification and rescue of child trafficking victims. However, CPC target regions do not appear to account for a majority of these increases; accounting for 33% of child victims identified in 2017.  Identification and rescue remain somewhat uneven, and not all agencies or districts, even within the target regions, are equally proactive.  Labor officers, in particular, felt under-resourced, with “no telephones in the office” (target region, MELR), and no transport to pursue identification. “We have no means of transport to conduct inspections – you cannot fight child trafficking sitting in the office” (comparison region, labor officer). Work sites were also given notice before inspections, “Work places get ample time and notice before we come,” (target region, labor officer), which eliminated the element of surprise.  Some respondents in law enforcement acknowledged that they waited for suspected cases to be reported and saw their role as reactive. Some police have been more pro-active, especially those working with IJM. One district officer noted increases in pro-active approaches in his district: Marine police are now patrolling the water; we are getting somewhere” (target region, GPS).

Resource constraints were pervasively reported, especially for transportation, fuel, and per diem needed to pursue rescues, as well as provide basic emergency needs for victims.  This mimics the Westat baseline, which also reported transportation resource issues, “The major constraint for government officers to conduct rescues seemed to be the lack of resources, including access to boats to go on the lake.[80] The purchase of vehicles through the CPC partnership for AHTUs in target regions has helped to mitigate this problem, though resource constraints remain. Some respondents also viewed law enforcement as not proactive or as lacking in resources to address child trafficking, though a few said ATHU units seemed to demonstrate more understanding of and dedication to child trafficking issues. Many respondents mentioned collaboration on identification and rescues, with police, DSW and NGOs working together.

Existing services for survivors were seldom said to be wholly satisfactory or sufficient. The ET was able to get a clear consensus that services were often under-resourced, not of consistently high quality, not sufficiently available in all locations, uneven in the array of services offered, and especially difficult to find for victims of sex trafficking. This was also true at the time of the baseline assessment.[81]  Few facilities are specifically for victims of child trafficking.  The Osu shelter in Accra provides short-term care for abandoned or street children and victims of all forms of child trafficking. Though several private shelters were cited as accepting victims of child trafficking, none were currently known to accept child victims of sex trafficking.  And although a directory of shelters and placement locations was reported by the TWG as being completed in 2017, respondents did not mention knowledge of this directory.

Shelter stays vary based on individual needs but are also capped by most specialized facilities, and victims are either reintegrated or transferred to long-term residential placements, typically in orphanages. Outside of basic necessities (accommodation, food, clothing), services offered vary widely, partly due to strategic choices made by service providers in order to better serve individual victims of trafficking, but also largely due to financial and resource constraints. Several service providers worked in cooperation with partners to build out their service options, and some were considering expanding their partnerships. Though shelters are available, some are frequently at capacity, and many first responders cited delays in getting shelter placements and transport for victims especially when the shelter is a great distance away.

Overall, resource constraints were a constant theme. Several first responders also indicated that finding shelter was extremely difficult and that when shelters did exist they required that funding be provided to support the children as some shelters lacked funding even to feed the children properly. As was similarly reported at baseline,[82] private shelters were better resourced than public shelters, and considered to offer more services and higher quality services. The Westat baseline assessment also mentions a “scarcity of trained psychologists.”  This remains a challenge, though several respondents understood why the role was crucial, and, more often mentioned the prohibitive cost rather than a scarcity of psychologists.

While the stakeholders are aware of these issues and plans and efforts are underway to address them, at this stage of project implementation, respondents outside of the national level were not fully aware of ongoing activities or outcomes. Opening of the Madina shelter, which is slated to happen in 2018, is a concrete step that only some stakeholders knew about. In the absence of broad awareness and implementation of minimum standards for age-appropriate services for victims of trafficking, or monitoring systems to ensure implementation,[83] the scope and quality of services is not consistent across providers and remains dependent on resources.  Increased funding was stalled until the HTMB was reconstituted, and then any additional amount going specifically to services is not clear. And, though shelter workers interviewed seemed invested in providing adequate and affectionate care, each noted the lack of adequate government funding. Overall, a variety of services are available in some locations and for some survivors, but this was not consistent across locations or service providers.

Many respondents said that reintegration services are especially challenging, more so when push-factors of poverty or cultural norms remain unchanged.  Reintegration is also time-consuming and requires resources for travel.  Virtually every respondent who talked about reintegration cited a lack of resources to do it properly, to include risk assessment, preparation for reintegration and follow-up. Aside from a couple of NGOs (IJM, Challenging Heights) who were more deeply involved in reintegration, this service was largely seen to be the task of DSW, with police providing physical transport for the victim in some instances.

Most respondents were able to recognize that victims of child trafficking had suffered and that this might impact their well-being and behavior, and several talked about symptoms and resulting behaviors (anger, depression, lack of trust, etc.).  As concerned adults, many with children of their own, respondents reported offering emergency support (food, clothing, a place to sleep), and parental advice or lay counseling. This compares with the Westat baseline, which mentions ‘do no harm’ approaches and “basic social knowledge” in handling victims.[84]

The Westat baseline also notes that, “Police do not receive specific training in trauma informed approaches, even though they are often the first ones to have contact with victims of trafficking.[85]  According to IOM, for the 500+ people trained on the new SOPs, each training included sections on trauma or trauma-informed approaches to services and/or in dealing with victims during prosecution.  Notably, there appears to be an increase in the percentage of informants at the regional and, to a lesser extent, at the district levels who have received such training since the baseline assessment, as shown in the table below.

Table 28: Percent of KIs who Received Training on Trauma-informed Approaches[86]
GoG Level Midline (%) Baseline (%)[87]
National 60 57
Regional 42 22
District 29 22

Prosecution

Though constraints to the arrest and prosecution of suspected traffickers remain myriad, positive results are also evident. National data demonstrates increases in the number of investigations involving child victims. However, it is not clear what portion of these come from CPC target regions.  Prosecutions have increased modestly, though delays in the court proceedings could mean that additional increases will be seen in future years.

Investigation of suspected child trafficking is seen as moving forward, with investigations in 2016 involving 7 child victims, accelerating to 196 child victims in 2017, but again, resource constraints are said to be a constant hurdle to proper in-depth investigation.  There may also be skills gaps in knowing what and how to investigate or how to build a case docket.  Prosecutors repeatedly mentioned shortcomings in evidence collection and preservation, while law enforcement and investigators mentioned resource constraints, difficulties in getting consistent testimony from children, and lack of expertise or cooperation from witnesses, parents and communities as obstacles in securing accurate and necessary evidence for prosecution. The Westat baseline indicated that investigation had been pushed off on NGOs.[88] This was no longer a finding in CPC target regions, though police continue to depend on international NGOs for supplementary financial support.

Based on the overall numbers for prosecution, which climbed from 11 in 2016 to 29 in 2017, it is clear that prosecutions are also on the rise.  Though numbers are disaggregated for children and for target regions only in the most recent CPC report for 2017, both the national statistics and the statements of respondents show some forward progress in bringing cases forward for prosecution. Convictions increased from zero to a total of six human trafficking convictions in 2017.  As the CPC Semiannual Data Report shows, additional cases are being filed as child labor or other violations.  A few respondents also specifically cited cases where the AG had reduced charges, stating that evidence was insufficient to prove trafficking. Prosecution of cases through the courts is also seen to be a time-consuming process, which puts additional burden on victims and witnesses.  Several respondents also cited difficulties in getting witnesses to step forward or in getting cooperation from known witnesses.  This was attributed to inconvenience, fear of retaliation, cultural norms and peer pressures in the community, and sometimes to bribes and corruption.  The Westat baseline identified these same pressures and noted, “KIs reported that the lack of witnesses impeded prosecutions. Community members rarely come forward to speak about suspected traffickers because many of the traffickers and slave masters are powerful members of the community and witnesses can receive few protections against retribution.”[89]

The use of the new SOPs remains ad hoc, with various internal procedures and forms being mentioned. In target regions, a few individuals had the IOM SOPs handy at their workstations, though most had not seen a case of child trafficking or had an opportunity to use them. This is likely to improve with more time and training (the SOPs were released in October 2017).

Progress is being made on simultaneous fronts, and, as progress continues to advance throughout the pre-requisite stages of identification and investigation, as well as with ongoing training provided through the CPC, findings on convictions under the Human Trafficking Act may increase in the future.

Partnerships

Creating a framework for collaboration is a key goal of the CPC and a structure with focal points is provided under the CPC Partnership. The TWG is functional and active, though some reported that not all members are able to prioritize child trafficking to the same extent. The HTS is considered to be informed and dedicated to the cause, and able to organize and lead TWG meetings and communications. Several respondents outside of the TWG were unclear about the status of the HTMB, or the priorities of the TWG, and some thought meetings should include invitations to non-members and rotate between locations to accommodate regional stakeholders.

The GoG’s financial contribution to the CPC partnership is difficult to track as the GoG is not able to fully disaggregate resources dedicated to combatting child trafficking. Significant funding has been allocated, but the release of those funds is stalled because the HTMB is not currently active. However, expectations and commitments remain high that the financial contributions will increase under the newly reconstituted HTMB.

Collaboration was reported throughout operations, including among government agencies and between government and non-government actors.  Many displayed a strong reliance on NGOs. Overall, collaboration was routine and free of major challenges (except with respect to resources and some bureaucracy), but such collaboration was not typically governed by SOPs, outside of a few MOUs between NGOs and the GPS.  Collaboration was sometimes more formally planned, and sometimes more reactive for practical purposes (i.e. placing victims). “Organizing rescues is now more collaborative with relevant agencies – HT police, marine police, DSW all sit together to plan the rescues. [There is] better communication between agencies,” (IP/NGO). “I recently was part of a rescue and all of the other agencies were a part of the rescue. Before it was not like that – now there is no operation that would go without including all of the stakeholders – so when we rescue the victims there is someone there to take care of them while we focus on arresting the perpetrators,” (target region, GPS). According to one respondent, the reason for better cooperation was directly attributable to the “importance being attached to child trafficking at the national level – deeper involvement of J/TIP is giving issues of trafficking more national dimension and people realize what is at stake,” (IP/NGO). Despite this progress, some cited that government should take the lead, and that a few non-state actors had overstepped, especially regarding victim rescues.

There were also some challenges cited in implementing a complex partnership.  Concerns were expressed about a lack of transparency regarding the funding provided to IOM and FTS and that activities/interventions were rushed through to meet TIP office deadlines.

Data flows are improving, as evidenced by the CPC Semiannual Report and as stated in interviews, and data is now being disaggregated for child trafficking and by region. A database is in progress and will be implemented pending approval by the GoG.

Prevention

Most respondents were aware of or had seen public awareness materials or campaigns, and many of these were reported to have some positive impact, significantly more so in target regions than in comparison regions. A number of messages and delivery channels were mentioned, and some opinions diverged when it came to what worked best. The general consensus from a predominant number of respondents indicated that public awareness interventions at the grassroots level, in local languages, at local levels, and with local leaders and communities, was perceived to be more effective and should be expanded. One respondent added that, “most at-risk children and their families are not literate,” and campaigns should take this into account to reach target audiences. This is where, they said, social marketing and awareness could change cultural norms and alert parents and communities to the real harms of child trafficking, and this is where peer pressure could deter parents from sending their children out to work.

Notably, CPC awareness efforts, implemented by FTS and INGH, work through partners at the local level.  Though these efforts were only cited in areas and communities where they had been implemented, they align with the awareness strategies most often suggested by respondents. FGD participants indicated that CPC interventions at the community level involving the existing CCPCs as well as newly established learning groups have raised awareness and led to change – with participants indicating that fewer people are willing to send their children away for work, enrollment in schools has increased, and concrete cases have been identified and the children rescued and returned to the village. Respondents also noted that raising awareness alone is not sufficient to address the problem. Poverty and other factors that put children at risk must also be combatted.

Access to livelihood assistance to support reintegration is generally lacking and many respondents said existing support is insufficient to meet essential family needs.  Respondents noted many constraints that prevented LEAP from doing much to help victims of child trafficking and their families. Some private service providers offered stipends of various kinds, but these too, while appreciated, were not considered substantial enough to make a long-term difference for the family. Some IP respondents cited vocational training and capacity building, coupled with seed funding, as a better solution than cash assistance alone.

VI. Recommendations

The following recommendations stem from midline findings and conclusions and are based on the recommendations offered by KII/FGD participants as well as on observations of the ET based on a helicopter view of implementation of the CPC Partnership to date.

Definition of Child Trafficking

  1. Through implementation of the next phase of CPC activities, consider additional emphasis on the following areas:
    1. Continue to promote understanding and application of Ghana’s definition of child trafficking. Many actors in agencies responsible for applying Ghana’s human trafficking act expressed confusion regarding whether movement is required in child trafficking and whether the consent of a minor mitigates a case of child sex trafficking.
    2. Continue to support and monitor expansion and quality of protection services. Promote implementation of the direct assistance standards set in the SOPs across all government approved shelters.
    3. Expand efforts to develop and enhance service referrals for victims and their families. Disseminate and keep current the directory of shelters and other service providers. Include in this directory legal aid and livelihood support services. Consider options and develop methods for finding shelter beds in real time as feasible.
    4. Finalize and promote implementation of the CPC data collection methodology and compilation of statistics in the target regions and seek support for expansion to additional regions. Ensure two-way flow of information and reports so that field offices see the whole picture.
    5. Emphasize and prioritize awareness-raising at the grassroots level. Engage local chiefs and faith leaders in awareness raising and in promoting reporting of child trafficking. Continue to engage with CCPCs in high-risk communities and emphasize public awareness in schools.
    6. Continue to advocate for LEAP eligibility for families with child victims of trafficking. Consider options for increasing support to provide for the family and facilitating access to job training and placement.
    7. Continue to extend mandatory curriculum and training for new recruits and active duty police through the police academy, for new and sitting judges through the judicial training center and for social workers and labor officers through appropriate channels. This includes training on SOPs and on victim-centered and trauma-informed approaches.
  2. Consider new or revised approaches for the remainder of the Partnership:
    1. Protection: Provide on-the-job training to Madina staff. Consider embedding Madina staff in private shelters currently serving victims of trafficking to provide hands-on training for new Madina shelter staff.
    2. Partnership:
      1. Invite more stakeholders to participate in select CPC TWG meetings. Consider holding some meetings in regional capitals and inviting organizations active in combatting human trafficking to report and participate.
      2. Expand SOPs into the other regions, focusing first where authorities have identified cases.
      3. Examine feasibility of the task force model for collaboration on cases. The task force model, being used with success in other countries, including the U.S., formalizes the use of a designated multi-disciplinary team (for example, consisting of ATHU police, immigration, DSW, and service providers in each district), trained to jointly respond to investigations and rescues and to ensure a victim centered approach. Standardize and formalize the process for collaboration on cases from identification through prosecution. Ensure that all first responders (GPS, DSW, MELR, NGOs) as well as prosecutor and judges understand their role and the role of others, and the importance of taking safety precautions.
    3. Cross-Cutting: Address resource constraints: Encourage release of GoG funding to combat human trafficking and its use to support investigations and prosecutions of trafficking cases as well as to support services provided by public and private service providers.

Annex I: References

Free the Slaves. Growing Up Free: An Effective Response to Child Trafficking in Ghana’s Volta and Central Regions, Project Narrative. 2015.

———. Quarterly Reports: Quarter 4, 2015 (October 2015) through Quarter 4, 2017 (September 2017). On file with the Evaluation Team.

Government of the Republic of Ghana. Human Trafficking Act. Act 694. December 8, 2005.

———. Human Trafficking Prohibition (Protection and Reintegration of Trafficked Persons) Regulations. , L.I. 2219. July 7, 2015.

———. The Children’s Act. Act 560. 1998.

———. Ministry of Employment and Gender and Social Protection. National Plan of Action for the Elimination of Human Trafficking in Ghana (2017 – 2021). June 2017. On file with the Evaluation Team.

———. Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection. CPC Semiannual Data, January 2015 to December 2017. On file with the Evaluation Team.

Government of the United States of America and Government of the Republic of Ghana, Child Protection Compact Partnership. June 23, 2015. www.state.gov/j/tip/cpc

International Justice Mission. Child Trafficking into Forced Labor on Lake Volta, Ghana: A Mixed-Methods Assessment. 2016. www.ijm.org/sites/default/files/resources/ijm-ghana-report.pdf

International Organization for Migration, “Ghana Project Narrative.” 2015. On file with the Evaluation Team.

———. Quarterly Reports. Quarter 4, 2015 (October 2015) through Quarter 4, 2017 (September 2017). On file with the Evaluation Team.

———. “Standard Operating Procedures to Combat Human Trafficking in Ghana, with an Emphasis on Child Trafficking.” 2017. https://publications.iom.int/books/standard-operating-procedures-combat-human-trafficking-ghana-emphasis-child-trafficking

Nordic Consulting Group A/S and JMK Consulting Ltd. Growing Up Free, Baseline Report. February 14, 2017.

United States Agency for International Development. Sustainable Fisheries Management Project Anti-Child Labor and Trafficking Field PRA Survey Report. September 2015. www.crc.uri.edu/download/GH2014_POL040_FoN_FIN508.pdf

United States Department of State. Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking In Persons. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report 2015. July 2015. Pp. 167-169.

———. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report 2016. June 2016. Pp. 180-182. www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2016.

———. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report 2017I. June 2017. Pp. 181-184.

———. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report, 2018. June 2018. Pp. 198-201.

———. Draft material and data on trafficking in persons in Ghana. On file with the Evaluation Team.

Westat. Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. October 22, 2016. On file with the Evaluation Team.

Annex II     Evaluation Statement of Work

Statement of Work for Midline Evaluation of U.S. – Ghana Child Protection Compact Partnership

PURPOSE

The purpose of this midline performance evaluation is to determine the extent to which the CPC Partnership model has been effective in bringing about improvements in the government’s response to child trafficking in Ghana, considering the three fundamental anti-trafficking strategies: prosecution, protection, prevention, along with coordination.

The midline evaluation is the second phase of a multi-phased evaluation, which will assess key factors in the government’s continuing response to child trafficking; it will compare achievements with the baseline conditions in the three target regions and two comparison regions.  The midline evaluation will seek to measure the effectiveness of all CPC components and help to determine whether adjustment is needed to the CPC activities, including activities of the implementing partners, and revised government performance indicators. Ultimately, this evaluation will allow the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (the TIP Office) to determine the impact of this type of partnership, and shape future partnerships to be more effective.

BACKGROUND

The U.S.-Ghana Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership is a first of its kind five-year program in which the TIP Office combined negotiated commitments of a foreign government with substantial targeted anti-trafficking foreign assistance to IOs/NGOs ($5 million) aimed at enhancing the foreign government’s capacity to identify child trafficking, implement a coordinated interagency response that results in comprehensive care and  reintegration of child trafficking victims, prevent re-trafficking of child victims, and effectively  investigate trafficking allegations and prosecute traffickers.  Following many months of collaborative meetings between the TIP Office and Ghanaian ministry staff, on June 23, 2015, the first Child Protection Compact Partnership was signed between the U.S. and the Government of Ghana with four participating ministries – the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Interior; and the Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations.  The TIP Office awarded cooperative agreements totaling $5 million in September 2015 to support two implementing partners (International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Free The Slaves (FTS) to work collaboratively with Ghana-based NGOs and the four Ghanaian ministries at the national level with implementation focused in three Regions of the country – Central, Volta and Greater Accra.  Project activities commenced October 2015.

Each of the four ministries in the CPC Partnership was selected because of its mandated role and responsibility for addressing child trafficking in Ghana.  Through the CPC Partnership, these ministries have committed to the activities briefly summarized below.

  1. The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection is providing leadership and coordination for Ghana on implementation and fulfillment of the commitments outlined in the Partnership; it convenes the Human Trafficking Management Board and the CPC Partnership Technical Committee. This Ministry will support the establishment and operation of at least one DSW-administered shelter for child victims of trafficking, ensure that DSW staff receive training, provide comprehensive services for increasing numbers of child trafficking victims, and conduct public awareness efforts.
  1. The Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department will designate a prosecutor in each of the three regions to lead Ghana’s child trafficking prosecutions, advise the Ghana Police Service (GPS) and Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) on the preparation of all child trafficking dockets, and ensure that prosecutors are trained to successfully prosecute child trafficking cases using victim-centered techniques.
  1. The Ministry of Interior/Ghana Police Service/Ghana Immigration Service will continue to provide personnel who specialize in human trafficking investigations, and will increase the number of child trafficking arrests and investigations. It will ensure participation of investigators and prosecutors in training to enhance their skills in TIP and in the use of victim-centered techniques.
  1. The Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations, Labor Department will ensure that labor inspectors receive TIP training, strengthen cooperation with DSW, GPS and GIS, provide TIP education programs in selected communities, and continue to train and support the capacity of District and Community Child Protection Committees to facilitate the reintegration of child trafficking victims who return to their communities.

The midline evaluation, which will evaluate the first two years of the program (10/1/15 – 9/30/17), will collect and analyze data from the national, regional and district level in five regions, in order to determine the extent to which the CPC Partnership is achieving its objectives (prevention, protection, prosecution, and process improvement), and to identify key obstacles, so that mid-course corrections can be made.  Using some of the same methodology and questions as the baseline assessment, it will also assess any programmatic and contextual factors that contributed to measureable change in commitment of government resources and political will for combating child trafficking.

SCOPE OF WORK

The contractor will conduct a midline performance evaluation with the objective of providing the TIP Office and the Government of Ghana information on the progress made by Ghana towards meeting its eight CPC objectives.  This will provide the opportunity for course correction and input on the CPC model.  Ghana’s objectives are:

  1. Provision of comprehensive, gender sensitive, trauma-informed care and case management services with appropriate community integration and follow up for an increased number of child trafficking victims
  1. An increased number of successful investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of forced child labor and child sex trafficking
  1. Improved interagency coordination of anti-trafficking efforts
  1. Increased public awareness of the nature of child trafficking, its devastating impact on children, and the importance of prevention
  1. Establishment and implementation of procedures for pro-active identification and removal of children from trafficking situations, including children in forced child labor in the fishing industry
  1. Establishment and operation of a systematic referral mechanism with protocols for timely interagency response to suspected cases of child trafficking
  1. Implementation of mechanisms for data collection designed to monitor indicators of anti-trafficking program outcomes supported through this Partnership and which can be sustained to track key government interventions, such as the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in child trafficking cases and the numbers of child trafficking victims identified and who receive services
  1. The increased use of livelihood options for families with children at risk of trafficking or removed from trafficking situations

In addition to evaluating progress on the eight objectives, the TIP Office would also like to know:

  • What challenges to meeting these objectives have been overcome, and how?
  • What significant challenges remain for enhanced attention by CPC partners?

As part of the midline evaluation’s key informant interviews, the TIP Office requests follow-up on some questions that were asked of key informants in the baseline assessment:

  • What training have you received on child trafficking? Who attended? Have you used the training?
  • What TIP-related Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) exist? How have you used these SOPs? (obtain copies and assess quality)
  • What are your procedures for tracking and reporting cases of child trafficking?
  • For CY 2017, what were the regional and national government statistics on the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions of child trafficking cases, the number of child victims identified, and the provision of services for these victims (disaggregated by age, gender, and type of trafficking, to the extent possible)

In terms of disaggregation of data for the evaluation, J/TIP would like government data disaggregated by ministry, region, and level (national, regional, district).  Disaggregation should be consistent with data collection forms developed for the government’s CPC reporting.

PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS/AVAILABLE DATA

A baseline assessment of the project’s three regions, with counterfactual of two comparison regions, was carried out on this project by Westat in 2016, with the following objectives:

  1. Collect quantitative information for the year 2015 on estimated numbers of rescues, arrests, prosecutions, and convictions for child trafficking cases, among other statistics
  2. Verify the existence of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), referral mechanisms and interagency collaborations
  3. Gather qualitative information on the quality and implementation of tools and procedures.

The assessment reported on a total of 91 key informant interviews (KI) comprised of 67 government officials from the four ministries involved in the CPC and 24 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across five regions of Ghana (the three target regions: Greater Accra, Central and Volta; and two comparison regions: Ashanti and Eastern).

A separate baseline was commissioned by one of the grantees, Free the Slaves, to look at the prevalence of child trafficking in 34 communities where they are working, and to learn more about some of the drivers of child TIP. The first 20 communities in the baseline have been completed.

Monitoring and assessment data available for the first two years of the project include:

  • Quarterly reports, notes from monthly meetings, site visit reports (from two grantees)
  • Data the government of Ghana submitted, which is summarized in the 2016 and 2017 TIP Reports
  • 1 semi-annual report from the CPC-participating ministries
  • Findings of the Westat Baseline Assessment and Inception Report
  • Summary Findings and report from FTS baseline assessment, phase 1; phase 2 draft report may also be available for review by evaluator
  • USAID Sustainable Fisheries Report

DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION DESIGN

In October 2016 a baseline assessment was completed that used a mixed methods design to study the three target regions of the CPC and two comparison regions, chosen for their geographical proximity to the target regions, and for their socio-economic and cultural similarities, Although the comparison regions were shown to have some differences from the target regions, the TIP Office would prefer that the midline evaluation continue this quasi-experimental design, including key informant interviews with  officials of each of the four ministries: a minimum of one national-level official from each ministry, one regional-level official from each ministry in each of the five regions, and one district-level official per ministry in two districts of each of the five regions.  (For consistency, contractor should go to the same districts visited in the baseline assessment.)  We expect that a focus group discussion with the Technical Working Group will be useful, as well as key informant interviews with the implementing grantees and other IOs/NGOs.  The TIP Office asks for evidence of the credibility of the data gathered and methodological triangulation.

EVALUATION TEAM QUALIFICATIONS

The contractor shall propose staff it deems appropriate to optimally meet the requirements.  The team needs expertise in human trafficking and evaluation methodology.  It should also have knowledge of local criminal justice and social service processes, a role that may be provided by Local Team Members hired as subcontractors or consultants.  All team members should understand the differences between child labor and child trafficking/forced child labor.

The TIP Office expects that staffing requirements for this impact evaluation will include representation of all of the labor roles listed in the chart, except that the Project Financial Analyst will be called on only if needed.  At the concept paper stage of this evaluation, the contractor will submit a list of proposed key and other personnel with confirmed availability within the agreed timeframe of the scope, brief resumes and two to three references for each proposed staff.  It is preferred that the key personnel are full time employees of the contractor; however, the contractor may subcontract for tasks or positions if required in order to obtain personnel with requisite experience and skills. Proposed personnel are expected to be assigned to the evaluation and shall be considered Key Personnel. The lead evaluators may be supported in basic research activities by lower level Personnel.  Any substitutes to the proposed team must be approved by the COR and CO before they begin work, no later than 60 days after the initiation of the evaluation on which they will be working.  Substitutes shall have the same qualifications and level of experience as previously approved evaluation staff.   At least one team member should be a resident of Ghana.  In some cases, if additional expertise is required, more team members may need to be added.  In addition, a staff member of the TIP Office with experience in evaluation may serve as an observer on portions of the site visits.  All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest.  The TIP Office will review conflicts of interest and has the right to refuse participation of team members as a result.

The TIP Office will not provide equipment for personnel in support of this effort.  The majority of the work will be completed off-site and in the field by the chosen contracting firm(s).

Contract Line Item Numbers
CLIN 001 International Team Lead Level 1 Eval Design/Mgmt Spec.(4009)
CLIN 002 International Team Member Level 2 Eval Design/Mgmt Spec. (4009)
CLIN 003 Local Team Member Local Level 3 Eval Methods Spec. (4010)
CLIN 004 Data Analyst Level 3 Eval Methods Spec. (4010)
CLIN 005 Project Financial Analyst Level 3 Evaluation Methods Specialist (4010)
CLIN 006 Administrative Support Staff Admin Support (4001)
CLIN 007 Travel
CLIN 008 Other Direct Costs
Position Descriptions
Role Description
International Team Lead

L1 Eval Design/Mgmt Spec (4009)

The Team Lead should have strong project leadership and management skills, and expertise in evaluation design and methods, preferably within an overseas context.  The team lead will have fluency in written and spoken English, along with excellent skills and experience in analysis, report writing, strategic thinking and presentation.

  • Graduate-level Degree
  • At least 5 years of experience working with the Federal Government, either working as an employee of the U.S. Government or managing and/or evaluating activities funded by the U.S. Government
  • Very knowledgeable on human trafficking issues as defined in TVPA and the Palermo Protocol
  • Proven track record of professional achievement, management competence, and strong interpersonal skills
International Team Member/s

L2 Eval Design/Mgmt Spec (4009)

At least one of these members must bring human trafficking expertise and overseas experience in on-site data collection.   Typical required skills and experience include:

  • Graduate-level Degree
  • Expertise in human trafficking and intervention approaches, with at least 3 years of experience in TIP-related projects
  • At least 2 years of experience in research methods that include, but are not limited to survey implementations, focus group discussion, and key informant interviews
  • Strong interpersonal skills and proven track record of professional competence.
Local Team Member/s

Local L3 Eval Methods Spec (4010)

At least one member on the evaluation team should be from the host country.  Typical needed experience of local staff includes knowledge of criminal justice and social service processes in the country of evaluation

Data Analyst

L3 Eval Methods Spec (4010)

This person assists with data collection, management and analysis.  Needs skill in use of data analysis software, Office Suite and presentation of data in graphic formats (e.g. graphs, maps, charts).

Project Financial Analyst/s

L3 Eval Methods Spec (4010)

May provide input on assessing general cost-effectiveness, depending on evaluation results.

Administrative Support Staff

Admin Support (4001)

Responsible for administrative support to the project.  Needs skill in use of Office Suite.

ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT

Information below constitutes government estimate for this project. Contractor is free to propose alternatives with justification.

  1. Team Lead to provide leadership and management of the development of the concept paper, the final evaluation plan, data collection and analysis, the written evaluation report, and oral presentation of findings. Responsible for maintaining regular contact with J/TIP and for ensuring informant protection is in place with ethics policy and IRB, if available.
  2. Team Member/s (including Member/s from the host country), work to review background research and develop proposed methodology, level of effort, team composition and qualifications, key evaluation questions, and anticipated challenges; to draft timeline with key deliverables and milestones and evaluation budget. Team Members will work on evaluation plan and data collection tools, organize and provide data collection, train any enumerators and verify data quality.  Work with the Data Analyst and Team Lead on analysis and on writing of evaluation report.  May participate in meetings to disseminate evaluation findings.  Local Team Member provides information on criminal justice and social service processes in the country of evaluation.
  3. Data Analyst, who performs data analysis using software and presents data in easy-to-understand graphic formats.
  4. Administrative Support staff.

STAKEHOLDERS/AUDIENCE FOR THIS EVALUATION

Planning the midline evaluation will involve the TIP Office’s CPC, Evaluation, and Program Team members and the Government of Ghana; also involved will be the two implementing partners who support the CPC Partnership, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and Free the Slaves (FTS), and their two sub-grantees, International Needs Ghana (INGH) and Right to be Free. Other stakeholders who will be following the results of the evaluation will be State Department policy makers and program managers; Members of Congress and Congressional staff that work on TIP-related authorizations and appropriations; Embassy Accra; the DOS Africa Bureau; USAID and the Department of Labor staff working on child labor and child trafficking issues; International Justice Mission (IJM); and the Department of State’s Evaluation Community of Practice.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance is September 18, 2017 through September 17, 2018.

DELIVERABLES AND TIMETABLE FOR GHANA MIDLINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The evaluation report will focus on what the project has achieved; how it is being implemented; whether expected results are occurring; how it is perceived; and other questions pertinent to program design, management and decision-making.  The counterfactual for this evaluation is two regions that are not involved in the CPC.  Evaluation staffing should include members with the following specialties: a team lead, team member/s experienced in project evaluation and trafficking in persons (including at least one local team member), data analyst/s, and administrative support.    A project financial analyst may also be included.

At a minimum, the following components will be required; timeframe to be developed with the TIP Office:

  • Consultation – The TIP Office will notify Contracting firm(s) of potential evaluation The TIP Office and Contracting firm consult in person, by phone and/or through written comments to discuss plans for continuing an impact evaluation and to discuss possible key questions. Start date of the evaluation is determined with COR.
  • Desk Review & Concept Paper – contractor does preliminary background research of project, including any previous assessments and monitoring of the project (e.g. logic models and quarterly reports), contextual situation, public datasets and recent literature to get an understanding of the issues to be studied and consults with key stakeholders to define elements of the evaluation plan. Within four (4) weeks of start date, contractor submits a concept paper with proposed methodology, level of effort, proposed team composition and qualifications, proposed key evaluation questions, anticipated challenges, draft timeline with key deliverables and milestones, documentation of consultations with key stakeholders, and draft budget for the evaluation.
  • Evaluation Plan – Within six (6) weeks of the start date, contractor submits the final evaluation plan including data sources, intervals of data collection, and cost-effective and flexible performance measurement tools for collecting consistent and reliable data for the baseline assessment. The data collection tools must be tested and the evaluation strategy and tools reviewed with stakeholders prior to data collection.  The contractor shall seek to get approval from any relevant IRB, and the evaluation plan must be approved by the COR before data collection begins.
  • Data Collection – completed by 20 weeks from start date – Contractor meets with stakeholders on site visits, collects and analyzes data, and verifies data quality. To the extent possible, data collection is performed by local enumerators. Data collectors provide preliminary findings in an out-briefing to stakeholders at the end of each site visit. (Baseline assessment contractor found about three weeks of site visits sufficient for data collection.)
  • Analysis and Evaluation Report – Contractor does data analysis and provides an evaluation report for all evaluation activities, with data reported in visual presentation through charts, graphs, geocoding, and mapping, when possible. This draft report is submitted within 24 weeks of the start date or as agreed upon by the COR and Contractor. This report will become final after J/TIP comments on the draft and approves the end product.   Main body of the report does not exceed 50 pages (exclusive of annexes). Report includes key findings and recommendations, and should be written so that it may be presented as a public document.   The report shall include:
    • Title Page (including US flag)
    • Executive Summary of not more than 3 pages
    • Background and context of the intervention
    • Evaluation questions
    • Methodology
    • Limitations of the methodology
    • Findings
    • Conclusions
    • Recommendations
    • Statements regarding any significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team
    • Annexes should include the SOW, sources, and all tools used in the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides.
    • Raw quantitative and qualitative data should be provided to J/TIP in a Microsoft Excel electronic file, anonymized as needed for protection of the informants.
    • The final report must be submitted in Word in a 12-point font, so that it can be made compliant with the Section 508 Program for the Office of Accessibility and Accommodations.
  • Oral Briefing of the Recommendations/Dissemination Presentation: The evaluation team should provide at least a one hour briefing to Washington D.C. stakeholders on the evaluation report and its findings, and recommendations on policy, programming and strategy implications, within 28 weeks of start date, or as agreed upon by the COR and contractor.  J/TIP will provide the necessary space and video technology to include country stakeholders, if appropriate. The total time spent preparing and delivering the oral presentation is not expected to exceed 10 hours. Reports of foreign assistance-funded evaluations are posted publicly, if possible.

REPORTING

The contractor shall maintain open, timely, and effective communications with the COR, resulting in a relationship that proactively addresses potential problems with flexible, workable solutions.

Monthly Reports:  The contractor shall have a phone consultation with the COR twice per month and submit monthly reports in English to the TIP Office no later than fifteen days after the end of each month.  These reports shall summarize progress and status of the major activities being undertaken in relation to the requirements of this evaluation; comparison of actual accomplishments with the deliverables established for the period of the report; deviations from the work plan and explanations of such; indications of any problems encountered and proposals for remedial actions as appropriate; and projected activities for the next reporting period.  Data measuring progress on each of the indicators selected as part of a monitoring plan shall be included in each report.

Final Report:  The contractor shall deliver a draft final report to the COR no later than 150 days before the completion date of this contract.  The COR will return the draft report within 15 days.  The final report shall summarize the major results achieved, any problems encountered, and notable successes realized in performing this project.  The contractor shall also make recommendations to J/TIP of appropriate follow-up actions.  The contractor has 30 days to complete the final report after the draft report is returned by the COR.  The report must be submitted in a format that is Section 508-compliant, for public posting.

SECURITY

No security clearance is required for this evaluation.

POSITION LOCATION & HOURS

The physical work location is at the contractor’s site or in the field.  J/TIP is at 1800 G. Street, Suite 2201, Washington, DC  20006.  J/TIP core hours are the core hours of the DOS.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EQUIPMENT AND ASSISTANCE

Contractor will provide own office space, computer, phone and other required equipment and supplies necessary to complete all job requirements.  Contractor will be responsible for obtaining visas and accommodations for site visit.  J/TIP will assist contractor in gaining access to project written materials and key personnel.

Annex III: List of Interview and Focus Group Discussion Participants

Ministry Region Department Gender Midline Baseline
KI MoGCSP Ashanti DSW M Remote Remote
KI MELR Ashanti Labor Department M Remote Remote
MoI Ashanti GPS Could not be reached Not interviewed
KI MoGCSP Ashanti DSW F In Person In Person
MELR Ashanti Labor Department Could not be reached In Person
KI MoI Ashanti GPS, AHTU F In Person In Person
KI MoI Ashanti GPS, AHTU M In Person In Person
MoI Ashanti GPS No Show Not interviewed
KI MoI Ashanti GIS M In Person In Person
KI MoJAGD Ashanti Public Prosecutions Division F In Person In Person
GI MoGCSP Ashanti DSW M In Person In Person
GI MoGCSP Ashanti DSW M In Person
KI MELR Ashanti Labor Department M In Person In Person
KI MoI Ashanti GPS M In Person In Person
KI MoGCSP Central DSW F In Person Remote
KI MELR Central Labor Department M In Person In Person
KI MoI Central GPS M In Person In Person
KI MoI Central GPS M In Person In Person
KI MoI Central GPS JUPOL M In Person In Person
KI MoI Central GIS F In Person In Person
KI MoJAGD Central Public Prosecutions Division M In Person In Person
MoGCSP Central DSW Could not be reached In Person
KI MELR Central Labor Department M In Person In Person
GI MoI Central GPS M In Person In Person
GI MoI Central GPS DOVSSU M In Person
KI MoGCSP Central DSW F Remote Remote
MELR Central Labor Department Position covered by regional labor office Not interviewed
MoI Central GPS Could not be reached Remote
KI MoGCSP Eastern DSW M Remote Remote
KI MELR Eastern Labor Department M Remote Remote
MoI Eastern GPS Could not be reached Remote
GI MoGCSP Eastern DSW M In Person In Person
GI MoGCSP Eastern DSW F In Person
GI MoGCSP Eastern DSW F In Person
KI MELR Eastern Labor Department M In Person In Person
GI MoI Eastern GPS M In Person In Person
GI MoI Eastern GPS M In Person In Person
GI MoGCSP Eastern DSW F In Person
GI MoGCSP Eastern DSW M In Person In Person
KI MELR Eastern Labor Department M In Person Remote
MoI Eastern GPS unable to meet him – send letter in advance next time. In Person
KI MoI Eastern GPS, AHTU M In Person In Person
KI MoI Eastern GPS JUPOL M In Person In Person
KI MoI Eastern GIS M In Person In Person
KI MoJAGD Eastern Public Prosecutions Division F In Person In Person
KI MoGCSP Greater Accra DSW F In Person In Person
MoGCSP Greater Accra DSW Cancel – not to be interviewed Not interviewed
KI MoGCSP Greater Accra DSW F In Person Not interviewed
MoGCSP Greater Accra DSW Could not be reached In Person
KI MELR Greater Accra Labor Department M In Person In Person
GI MELR Greater Accra Labor Department M In Person
GI MELR Greater Accra Labor Department F In Person Remote
KI MoI Greater Accra GPS, AHTU F In Person In Person
KI MoI Greater Accra GPS, JUPOL M Remote In Person
MoJAGD Greater Accra Public Prosecutions Division Could not be arranged In Person
KI MoGCSP Greater Accra DSW M Remote Remote
KI MELR Greater Accra Labor Department M Remote Not interviewed
KI MoI Greater Accra GPS M Remote Not interviewed
KI MoGCSP Greater Accra DSW F Remote Remote
KI MoI Greater Accra GPS M Remote Remote
KI MoGCSP National Human Trafficking Secretariat F In Person In Person
KI MoGCSP National Human Trafficking Secretariat F In Person In Person
KI MoGCSP National DSW F In Person In Person
GI MELR National Labor Department F In Person Remote
GI MELR National Labor Department M In Person
KI MoI National Research M In Person In Person
KI MoI National GPS, AHTU M In Person In Person
 KI MoI National GPS, AHTU F In Person
KI MoI National GIS F In Person In Person
KI MoJAGD National Public Prosecutions Division F In Person Remote
KI MoGCSP Volta DSW M In Person In Person
KI MELR Volta Labor Department M In Person In Person
KI MoI Volta GPS, AHTU M In Person In Person
KI MoI Volta GPS M In Person In Person
KI MoI Volta GIS M In Person In Person
GI MoJAGD Volta Public Prosecutions Division M In Person In Person
GI MoJAGD Volta Public Prosecutions Division F In Person
MoGCSP Volta DSW Could not be reached Remote
KI MELR Volta Labor Department M Remote Remote
KI MoI Volta GPS M Remote Remote
GI MoGCSP Volta DSW M In Person Remote
GI MoGCSP Volta DSW F In Person
KI MELR Volta Labor Department M In Person In Person
KI MoI Volta GPS M In Person not completed
KI IP Don Bosco Shelter M In Person In Person
KI  IP Free the Slaves M In Person Remote
GI  IP International Needs Ghana F In Person In Person
GI  IP International Needs Ghana F In Person
KI  IP International Organization for Migration M In Person In Person
KI  NGO IJM F In Person Remote
GI  IP Challenging Heights M In Person In Person
GI  IP Challenging Heights M In Person
KI  IP Free the Slaves M In Person In Person
GI NGO Friends of the Nation F In Person
GI NGO Friends of the Nation M In Person Remote
  • Atsu Hvor was interviewed for baseline as the representative in Kpando. Since then he has taken up a regional position in Ho.

Note: names in bold red indicate that the individual person interviewed at midline was not interviewed at baseline. This was a result of staffing changes in the department as well as additional people brought in for group interviews. More rarely, the individual interviewed at baseline was not available and requested that we interview someone else from his or her unit.

Annex IV: KII Protocol

Introduction

Hello, my name is [          ] and my colleague is [          ]. This evaluation is funded by the U.S. Department of State and is being conducted by DevTech Systems and Khulisa Management Services, who we represent [Pause for KIs to introduce themselves.]  It covers the period 10/1/15 to 12/31/17. Thank you so much for your time. Before we get started here today it is our standard practice to get your informed consent for this interview. As part of that process we will give each of you a form to read and sign.

Written Consent

[INTERVIEWER PASS OUT FORM AND READ IT OUT LOUD. Give time for KI to review form and ask questions. Do not begin until you have the signed form or verbal consent.

Definition of Child Trafficking

Let us begin by ensuring we have a shared understanding of the definitions that we use for child labor trafficking and child sex trafficking. Please tell us how you define child trafficking – both for labor and for sexual exploitation. [Probe if needed for key elements: For labor: can you describe a case involving child labor that would be considered TIP? What elements make this a case of TIP? – look for responses involving force or abuse or deception – a promise made but not kept (such as enrolling the child in school) – or a child who cannot leave their employment. For sex trafficking – can you describe a situation where a person under the age of 18 can consent to sex in exchange for money or other goods and therefore it would not be considered TIP?].

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Overview of Key Informant Interview Topics [for interviewer reference only – do not read aloud]:

  1. Informant and Entity Details
  2. Training and Mentoring
  3. Human Trafficking Management Board
  4. Collaboration between Government and NGOs
  5. Collaboration between Government Departments / Units [for Government KIIs only]
  6. Identification and Rescue of Victims of Child Trafficking
  7. Working with Victims of Child Trafficking
  8. Shelters and Reintegration Services for Child Survivors and their Families
  9. Standard Operating Procedures on TIP
  10. Investigation of Child Trafficking Crimes
  11. Arrests of Perpetrators of Child Trafficking Crimes
  12. Prosecution and Conviction of Child Trafficking Crimes
  13. Public Awareness Activities
  14. Conclusion

Key Informant Interview Questions

[INTERVIEWER: ITEMS IN [BRACKETS] ARE INTERNAL, BUT MAY HELP CLARIFY

PARTICIPANT QUESTIONS OR RESPONSES]

1. Informant and Entity Details

[Fill in as much as possible prior to the interview. Confirm information for our records. If additional people participate in the KII, send around a sign in sheet for them to fill in.]

  1. Full name
  2. Gender [Male/Female]
  3. Position title or role
    1. Write exact job title.
    2. How many years have you been in this position?  /__/__/
    3. What are your roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis child trafficking?
  4. Organization type [government, NGO, law enforcement, implementing partner (IP)]
    1. Write exact name of organization.
  5. Organization region [National, Greater Accra, Volta, Central, Ashanti, Eastern]
    1. Organization address
    2. Phone contact number
    3. Email address
    4. Organization website address

2. Training and Mentoring [EQ 3; EQ 2]

  1. Have you received training related to child trafficking?  [If no training on child trafficking ask same questions for human trafficking – not child specific – and note below.]
    Yes  = 1                     No  = 2   on child TIP or TIP generally [circle one]

    1. If, yes, when did you receive training or refresher / follow-on training?
    2. What did the training involve [topics, duration]?
    3. Who organized/conducted the training?
  2. Have you changed the way you do your job as a result of the training?
    Yes = 1                                        No  = 2

    1. What do you do differently as a result of the training? [strategy, technical, mindset or approach. Probe: can you give us an example of something you have done differently?]
    2. If you have not been able to apply the training, why not? [Probe: have you had any cases of child trafficking since the training? Was the training relevant for your position?]
  3. Do you feel you or your colleagues would benefit from additional training / mentoring?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 2.4]

    1. If yes, what type of additional training and mentoring? [topics, skills needed]
    2. Do you have any recommendations concerning training on child trafficking?
  4. Please describe any specific challenges you face in finding or attending training.

3. Human Trafficking Management Board [EQ 1-c; EQ 2]

  1. Are you aware of the Child Protection Compact (CPC) Partnership?
    Yes  = 1                     No  = 2 [skip to 3.2]

    1. If yes, are you a part of the CPC Partnership?
      Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 3.2]

      1. What is your role in the CPC Partnership?

[THE FOLLOWING TO BE ASKED OF NATIONAL HQ STAFF ONLY}

  1. Are you aware of the Human Trafficking Management Board (HTMB)?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to section 4]

    1. If yes, do you participate in HTMB meetings?
      Yes  = 1                     No  = 2 [skip to 3.2.2]

      1. Describe your role in the HTMB
    2. What are the main functions of the HTMB?
    3. What are the main achievements / results of the HTMB between October 2015 – December 2017?
    4. What challenges does the HTMB have in fulfilling their role?
    5. Do you have any recommendations for the HTMB? [related to functions, participation, effectiveness, etc.]

4. Collaboration between Government and NGOs [EQ 1-c, 1-e and 1-f, EQ 2]

  1. Have you collaborated with an NGO [for government KI] or a government entity [for NGO KI] in relation to a child trafficking case?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 4.2]

    1.  With which organizations / entities did you collaborate? [name]
    2. What was the nature of the collaboration?
    3. What specific challenges, if any, did you encounter?
  2. What procedures or SOPs are in place to govern collaboration and are they functioning?
    1. Please describe any training you received on these SOPs or procedures.
  3. What, if anything, prevented you from collaborating with an NGO or government entity, or prevented you from collaborating on additional cases?
  4. Do you have any recommendations to facilitate / improve collaboration between government and NGOs in relation to child trafficking cases?

5. Collaboration between Government Departments / Units [for Government KIs only] (EQ 1-c, EQ 1-e, EQ1-f & EQ 2]

[INTERVIEW NOTE: THIS SECTION IS FOR GOVERNMENT ONLY; FOR NGOS, SKIP TO 6]

  1. Do you work alongside / collaborate with other government departments / units                 within your ministry or with other ministries in relation to child trafficking cases?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 5.2]

    1. With which departments / units did you collaborate?
    2.  What was the nature of the collaboration?
    3. What specific challenges to collaboration, if any, did you encounter?
  2. What SOPs or procedures are in place to govern collaboration and are they functioning?
    1. Please describe any training you received on these SOPs or procedures.
  3. What, if anything, prevented you from collaborating with other departments / units, or prevented you from collaborating on additional cases?

Do you have any recommendations to facilitate / improve collaboration between government departments / units in relation to child trafficking cases?

6. Identification and Rescue of Victims of Child Trafficking [EQ 1 – e, EQ 1-f, & EQ 2, ]

  1. Were you involved in identifying and/or rescuing victims of child trafficking during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 6.2]

    1. If yes, how many cases?      /__/__/__/  [DK = don’t know]
    2. Please tell us about a case [Where was the child identified?  How were they identified? Who was involved in identification? What happened to the child after identification?]
    3. To your knowledge, were any victims identified but not rescued?
      Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 6.2]

      1. If yes, what was the reason?
  2. Are you aware of any screening tools, referral procedures, or SOPs in place to identify victims of child trafficking or to refer /connect victims to first responders (police, immigration, DSW) and/or to service providers?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 6.3]

    1. If yes, what screening tools, referral procedures, SOPs? [Describe the mechanism, who developed it]  [ASK FOR COPIES OR ONLINE LINK]
      1. Please describe any training you received on these tools, procedures or SOPs. [EQ 3]
    2. Have you ever used these tools, procedures or SOPs?
      Yes  = 1                     No  = 2 [If no, ask why not? Then skip to 6.3]

      1. If yes, was it effective?
        Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2
      2. Why or why not?
      3. Do you have any recommendations for improving the tools, procedures or SOPs?
  3. Has the process of victim identification and referral changed since October 2015?
    Yes = 1                                        No = 2 [skip to 6.4]

    1. If yes, how has it changed?
  4. What are some of the specific challenges involved in identifying and rescuing victims of child trafficking?
  5. Do you have any recommendations to address these challenges?

7. Working with Victims of Child Trafficking [EQ 1-a, EQ 2]

  1. Are you or your organization/agency involved in providing services to victims of child trafficking?
    Yes  = 1                     No  = 2
  2. Have you been trained in child-friendly trauma-informed approaches? [EQ 3]
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 7.3]

    1. If yes, when were you trained?
    2. Who organized / conducted the training?
    3. Briefly describe your understanding of what is meant by the term ‘trauma informed approach’?
      1. If yes, describe how you have utilized this training.
      2. If no, why were you not able to utilize this training?
    4. Have you used this training in serving victims of child trafficking?
      Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2
  3. What challenges do you face in trying to implement trauma-informed approaches?
  4. Would you or your colleagues benefit from [additional] training?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 7.5]

    1. If yes, on what topics or skills do you need training?
  5. Have you heard about or do you have any impressions about how victims are treated by:
    1. Social Welfare Workers      Consistently Poor = 1                             Mostly Poor = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly Well = 4     Consistently Well = 5
    2. Police officials                                           Consistently Poor = 1                            Mostly Poor = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly Well = 4     Consistently Well = 5
    3. Prosecutors and judges       Consistently Poor = 1                             Mostly Poor = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly Well = 4     Consistently Well = 5
    4. Immigration officials                              Consistently Poor = 1                             Mostly Poor = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly Well = 4     Consistently Well = 5
    5. Local communities                                  Consistently Poor = 1                             Mostly Poor = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly Well = 4     Consistently Well = 5
    6. Parents and guardians         Consistently Poor = 1                             Mostly Poor = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly Well = 4     Consistently Well = 5
    7. Are there differences in how boy and girl victims are treated?
    8. Are there differences in how victims of labor vs. sex trafficking are treated?
  6. Do you have any recommendations about how to improve / ensure that victim-centered and trauma-informed approaches are utilized throughout the process from identification to reintegration?

8. Shelters and Reintegration Services for Child Survivors and their Families [EQ 1-a, EQ 1-g & EQ 1-h]

[INTERVIEW NOTE: REGIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON THEIR REGION.

NATIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON RESULTS THROUGHOUT GHANA.]

  1. How many shelters or service providers are there [in your region/Ghana] that will serve child trafficking victims?
    1. Government:                           /__/__/__/  [DK = don’t know]
    2. NGO:                                           /__/__/__/  [DK = don’t know; skip to 9]
  2. How would you assess the quality of services offered by shelters or other service providers?
    1. Government:         Consistently Low = 1                               Mostly Low = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly High = 4     Consistently High = 5
    2. NGO:                         Consistently Low = 1                               Mostly Low = 2
      Mixed = 3                Mostly High = 4     Consistently High = 5
  3. How would you assess the sufficiency of services offered by shelters or service providers? [Are services sufficient for meeting the needs of child victims and their families?]
    1. Government:         Consistently Inadequate = 1                                  Mostly Inadequate = 2
      Adequate = 3         Better than Adequate = 4   Excellent = 5
    2. NGO:                         Consistently Inadequate = 1                                  Mostly Inadequate = 2
      Adequate = 3         Better than Adequate = 4   Excellent = 5
    3. Please explain why you assessed the sufficiency of services as you did?

[THE REMAINING QUEWTIONS ARE FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS AND DSW ONLY;

PARTICIPANTS FROM LABOR SKIP TO 8.7; ALL OTHERS SKIP TO 9]

  1. Do you receive or are supposed to receive any funding from the Government?
  2. Capacity
    1. What population do you serve? [probe: adult/child, male/female, TIP survivors only or also others, sex/labor]
    2. Are there any contra-indications for which you would refuse service? [probe: drug addiction, sexual exploitation, prostitution, disabilities]
  3. [ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF SERVICE PROVIDERS ONLY IF TIME ALLOWS] What services does your organization provide to child victims of trafficking? Please note which are provided directly and which through partnerships/referral with others (government or NGOs).
    [CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY AND CIRCLE WHETHER DONE IN-HOUSE OR THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS WTH OTHERS, including government and/or NGO partners.]
    Don’t know ____ [skip to 8.7]
    Hotline _____                                                                                                  in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Emergency field response _____                                          in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Shelter accommodation/food _____                                                     in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Safety assessment / planning _____                                                      in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Clothing / shoes_____                                                               in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Psychological screening _____                                               in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Psycho-social counseling                                                          in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Psychiatric services                                                                                       in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Medical /dental/vision screening and care _____         in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Legal advice and victim advocacy _____                            in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Education and literacy _____                                                                   in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Life skills training _____                                                            in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Vocational training _____                                                        in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Reintegration / community orientation _____                in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Post-reintegration follow-up _____                                     in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Public awareness for community prevention _____     in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
    Other / specify: _______________________                                    in shelter / partnerships – GV / NGO
  4. What livelihood opportunities are provided through shelters or service providers for the families of child victims of trafficking?
    1. Have livelihood opportunities for victims and their families increased during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
      Yes = 1                                        No = 2
    2. If yes, please explain how and why.
    3. Are livelihood opportunities sufficient to prevent re-trafficking?
      Yes = 1                                        No = 2

      1. If no, what more is needed?
  5. What efforts has your agency/organization made to access LEAP funds for families of TIP survivors?
    1. What challenges do you face in helping families access LEAP funds
    2. Do you have any data `on accessing LEAP funds which you can share with us?
  6. What are the greatest challenges for government or NGOs in providing services for survivors?
  7. What is the process for reintegrating children into their communities? And who is involved in this process?
    1. Do government social workers perform risk assessments before reintegration?
      Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2                      Not sure = 3
    2. Do NGO staff members perform risk assessments before reintegration?
      Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2                      Not sure = 3
  8. What are the challenges involved in reintegrating survivors? What are the key challenges that lead to re-trafficking? [Probe to expand response beyond the issue of poverty]
  9. Do you have any recommendations to improve the services or effectiveness of shelters and/or other service providers or the outcomes for survivors?
  10. Are you aware of any databases or reports that record the number of victims provided shelter or other reintegration services or the number who are re-trafficked?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2  [skip to 9]

    1. If yes, who produces these reports and where are they available?

[INTERVIEW NOTE: ASK FOR COPIES OR ONLINE LINK]

  1. Please describe any mechanism or SOP you follow for reporting or recording cases of child trafficking [To whom do you report? Are there standard forms which you utilize? Who provided these forms?
    1. Did you receive training on data collection and reporting or the use of standardized forms? [EQ 3]
    2. If you do not report cases to a government entity, why not?

9. Standard Operating Procedures for Prosecution [EQ 1-e, EQ 1-f & EQ 2]

  1. Do you know about any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to investigation, prosecution or the provision of assistance for child trafficking cases?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2 [skip to 9.2]

These cases are not tried in open court, but instead in chambers; have special prosecutors.

    1. If yes, what do these SOPs cover?
    2. Do you have documentation for these SOPs?
      Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2
      [INTERVIEW NOTE: ASK FOR COPIES OR ONLINE LINK]
    3. Did you receive training on the SOPs relevant to your work? [EQ 3]
    4. Have you had an opportunity to utilize the SOP (s)?
      1. Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2
      2. If yes, please describe how and when you used it and if it was effective. If no, why not?
    5. Are these SOPs systematically followed by all involved?
      Yes  = 1 [skip to 9.2]                                No  = 2

      1. If no, what is not followed and why?
      2. What are the challenges that result in non-compliance?
  1. Do you have any recommendations for creating, updating or improving the SOPs?

10. Investigation of Child Trafficking Crimes [EQ 1-b, EQ 1-g & EQ 2]

  1. Have you been involved in any investigations of child trafficking crimes during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2  [skip to 10.6]

    1. If yes, in how many cases have you been involved?                       /__/__/__/
    2. Please describe role, collaborators and outcomes.
      [INTERVIEW NOTE: REGIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON THEIR REGION.
      NATIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON RESULTS THROUGHOUT GHANA.]
  2. Has the process of investigating child trafficking cases changed during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
    Yes = 1                                        No = 2

    1. If yes, how has it changed?
  3. What are the key challenges in investigating child trafficking cases? [probe to expand response beyond the issue of resources, e.g. victims unwilling to testify]
  4. What are your recommendations to improve investigations of child trafficking cases?
  5. What are the mechanisms for recording and reporting incidents of and investigations into child trafficking cases? [Probe to identify if and how cases are reported to national entities]
    1. Are there standard forms for reporting?
    2. Did you receive training on data collection and reporting mechanisms?
  6. Are there any reports that show the number of child trafficking incidents and/or investigations in your region or in Ghana?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2

    1. If yes, who produces these reports and where are they available?

[INTERVIEW NOTE: ASK FOR COPIES OR ONLINE LINK]

11. Arrests of Perpetrators of Child Trafficking Crimes [EQ 1-b, EQ 1-g & EQ 2]

  1. Have you been involved in any arrests for child trafficking crimes during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2  [skip to 11.6]

    1. If yes, in how many arrests have you been involved?     /__/__/__/
    2. 11.1.2Please describe role, collaborators and outcomes.
  2. Has the process of arresting perpetrators of child trafficking cases changed during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
    Yes = 1                                        No = 2

    1. If yes, how has it changed?
  3. What are the key challenges in arresting perpetrators of child trafficking? [Probe to expand response beyond the issue of resources]
  4. What are your recommendations to increase or improve arrests related to child trafficking cases?
  5. What are the mechanisms for recording and reporting arrests in child trafficking cases? [Probe to identify if and how cases are reported to national entities]
    1. Are there standard forms for reporting?
    2. Did you receive training on data collection and reporting mechanisms?
  6. Are there any reports that show the number of arrests in your region or in Ghana?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2

    1. If yes, who produces these reports and where are they available?

[INTERVIEW NOTE: ASK FOR COPIES OR ONLINE LINK]

12. Prosecution of Child Trafficking Crimes [EQ 1-b, EQ1-g EQ 2]

  1. Have you been involved in prosecution of child trafficking crimes during the period October 2015 – December 2017?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2  [skip to 12.6]

    1. If yes, in how many prosecutions have you been involved?                          /__/__/__/
    2. Please describe role, collaborators, and outcomes.
    3. How many of these cases resulted in convictions?
  2. Has the process of prosecution changed since October 2015?
    Yes = 1                                        No = 2

    1. If yes, how has it changed?
  3. What are the key challenges in prosecuting and convicting perpetrators of child trafficking? [Probe to expand response beyond the issue of resources, including coordination with investigators and charges being changed to non-TIP offenses]
  4. What are your recommendations to increase or improve prosecutions related to child trafficking cases?
  5. What are your recommendations to increase convictions or improve sentencing related to child trafficking cases?
  6. What process is followed to report prosecution data on child TIP or TIP to the national level? Are there any reports that show the number of prosecutions in your region or in Ghana?
    [NOTE: REGIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON THEIR REGION.
    NATIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON RESULTS THROUGHOUT GHANA.]
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2

    1. If yes, who produces these reports and where are they available?

[INTERVIEW NOTE: ASK FOR COPIES OR ONLINE LINK]

13. Public Awareness Activities [EQ 1-d, EQ 2]

[INTERVIEW NOTE: REGIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON THEIR REGION.

NATIONAL ACTORS SHOULD ANSWER BASED ON RESULTS THROUGHOUT GHANA.]

  1. Do you think there has been a change in public awareness of child trafficking since October 2015?
    Yes  = 1                     No  = 2

    1. If yes, please describe the change you have noticed. Give examples.
    2. Are you aware of activities/campaigns to raise awareness on child trafficking?
      Yes  = 1                     No  = 2  [skip to 13.3]

      1. If yes, what types of activities?
      2. Are they national or regional in nature? If regional, which regions?
      3. In what types of venues are these activities? [school, community center, government building, etc.]
  2. Do you consider current public awareness activities effective?
    Yes  = 1                                       No  = 2

    1. If yes, what types of activities are most effective and why?
    2. If no, why are they ineffective?
    3. What could make these activities more effective?
  3. What are the key challenges in prevention of child trafficking?
  4. What are the key challenges in raising public awareness? [Coverage, access, counter-incentives, etc.]
  5. Do you have any recommendations related to public awareness of child trafficking or other prevention strategies?

14. CONCLUSION

  1. Are there any other areas of progress / achievement within your agency / organization since October 2015 that we did not yet discuss?
  2. Are there internal or external challenges in working on child trafficking cases which we have not yet discussed?
  3. Is there anything else you would like to add or that we should have asked?
  4. Do you have any questions about this interview?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INSIGHTS – WE APPRECIATE BOTH VERY MUCH!

Annex V: FGD Protocol

Introduction [5 minutes]

Hello, my name is [          ] and my colleague is [          ]. This evaluation is funded by the U.S. Department of State and is being conducted by DevTech Systems and Khulisa Management Services, who we represent.  It covers the period 10/1/15 to 12/31/17. Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves – with our name and the agency we work for. [Pause for participants to introduce themselves.] Thank you so much for your time. Before we get started here today it is our standard practice to get your informed consent to participate in this focus group discussion.

Written Consent [5 minutes]

[INTERVIEWER PASS OUT FORM AND READ IT OUTLOUD. Give time for participants to review form and ask questions. Do not begin until you have the signed form or verbal consent from everyone. For community FGDs, read informed consent aloud and ask each individual if they give their verbal consent.]

This discussion will last no more than two hours. This is a focus group discussion format which means that we will present topics for discussion and then listen as you discuss these issues amongst yourselves. It is not necessary for everyone to agree. The point of the FGD is to understand differing opinions on the matter – so please speak up if you disagree with your colleagues. Please try to speak one person at a time so that we can be sure to catch everyone’s points. Do not hesitate to ask for clarification at any time if any question is unclear. Are there any questions before we get started?

[INTERVIEWER / FACILITATOR:  PASS AROUND A SIGN-IN SHEET TEMPLATE REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, AND ENSURE THAT EVERYONE PRESENT COMPLETES IT. MAKE A NOTE OF THE GENDER OF EVERYONE PRESENT. For community FGDs, write down all participants’ names and gender].

  • Name
  • Title/Position
  • Ministry / government department
  • Phone number / Email

FGD with the Technical Working Group

  1. Where does the HTMB stand now and what is the status of TIP funding?
  1. Have there been any changes in the process of data collection – development of indicators
  1. What were prior challenges in getting data and consolidating it?
  1. Are there ongoing challenges?
  1. The CPC Partnership describes increasing budget commitments for TIP in each CPC region. What is the status of this commitment?
  1. Effectiveness of support for CPC grantees
  1. Please discuss progress to date
  1. Please discuss challenges overcome
  1. Please discuss challenges remaining

FGDs with Communities

  1. Let’s discuss your understanding of child trafficking
  1. Tell us about your community child protection committee and learning group
  1. What changes have you seen in your community as a result of the work of the CCPC?

Probe: has there been any change in awareness of the issue in your community?

  1. Have any cases of trafficking been prevented?
  1. Have any cases of trafficking been identified? Have any cases of trafficking been identified and not rescued?

Probe: What happens when a child is rescued?

  1. Have any prosecutions taken place?

Probe: If not, how are cases resolved?

  1. What support, if any, is provided to children who return to the community?
  1. What support is provided to the family of the child?
  1. How do parents react to children who return home?
  1. How does the community react to children who return home?
  1. What recommendations do you have for other communities like your own.
  1. What recommendations do you have for your own community?
  1. What recommendations do you have for INGH?

Annex VI: Informed Consent Agreement

Informed Consent Form – Ghana CPC Partnership Midline Evaluation

Purpose of Evaluation

We are here today to conduct a mid-point evaluation to determine the extent to which the U.S. / Ghana Child Protection Compact Partnership has contributed to efforts to combat child trafficking in Ghana.  We also seek to understand whether and how the CPC Partnership model, and its implementation, might be adjusted to optimize positive results in the future.

Our evaluation will examine the perceived and actual progress toward achieving the eight objectives of the CPC Partnership. These objectives address three fundamental anti-trafficking strategies – preventing child trafficking, protecting victims, and prosecuting traffickers – while emphasizing coordination through partnership. We will also examine any challenges in meeting the CPC objectives to date, whether and how such challenges have been overcome, and what challenges remain.

Your input has been sought due to your involvement in countering child trafficking in Ghana.

Format of Interview

This will be an oral interview using a series of pre-written questions.  We estimate that the interview will take approximately one hour. You may feel free to ask for clarifications or skip questions which are not applicable, if you are uncertain or if you are uncomfortable answering. You may end this interview at any time without repercussions.

Use and Attribution

Information collected will contribute to a Midline Evaluation Report. This report will be shared with CPC Partnership stakeholders, including the U.S. Government and the Government of Ghana, specifically, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection (MoGCSP); the Ministry of Justice (MoJ); the Ministry of Interior (MoI); and the Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations (MELR), and may be used to guide CPC efforts going forward.  Please note that all of your individual responses will remain confidential – responses will be aggregated and will not be attributed by name or position to any individual. Every effort will be taken to ensure that specific responses cannot be ascribed to any individual.

Do you have any questions? If you agree to participate in this interview for the purposes stated above, please sign below:

Name (please print)

Signature

Date

Annex VII: Data Collection and Analysis by Evaluation Question

Evaluation Question/CPC Objective Analysis Approach Data collection method
To what extent have CPC-supported activities led to progress toward achieving the eight objectives of the Ghana CPC project?
a)      Provision of comprehensive, gender-sensitive, trauma-informed care and case management services with appropriate community integration and follow up for an increased number of child trafficking victims Gather information on training provided on service provision from KIIs and the TIP Office document review. Collect information from key informants on knowledge and utilization and compare with the baseline. KIIs, document review
b)     An increased number of successful investigations and prosecutions of perpetrators of forced child labor and child sex trafficking Obtain expert opinion on the progress from KIIs. Compare statistics provided by the TIP Office. KIIs, GoG statistics as presented in the U.S. TIP Report and/or as provided by the TIP Office
c)      Improved interagency coordination of anti-trafficking efforts Collect information from KIIs and FGD and document review and compare to baseline. KIIs, FGD, document review
d)     Increased public awareness of the nature of child trafficking, its devastating impact on children, and the importance of prevention Obtain and review reports from IPs (primarily FTS) and ministries, and compare with expert opinions from KIIs KIIs, document review
e)      Establishment and implementation of procedures for pro-active identification and removal of children from trafficking situations, including children in forced child labor in the fishing industry Gather information on SOPs developed by IPs/GoG from document review. Obtain information on current procedures and knowledge and use of SOPs that relate to their jobs from KIIs and compare to baseline.   Assess effectiveness of SOPs. KIIs, document review
f)       Establishment and operation of a systematic referral mechanism with protocols for timely interagency response to suspected cases of child trafficking Gather information on SOPs developed by IPs/GoG from document review and FGD. Obtain information on current procedures and knowledge and use of SOPs from KIIs and FGD and compare to baseline.  Assess effectiveness of referral mechanism. KIIs, FGD, document review
g)      Implementation of mechanisms for data collection designed to monitor indicators of anti-trafficking program outcomes supported through this Partnership and which can be sustained to track key government interventions, such as the number of investigations, prosecutions, and convictions in child trafficking cases and the numbers of child trafficking victims identified and who receive services Gather information from document review on current data collection practices and mechanisms developed by IPs/GoG. Obtain information on how data is collected and shared in practice from KIIs and FGD, as well as users’ opinions on the data collection tool. Compare to baseline. KIIs, FGD, document review
h)     The increased use of livelihood options for families with children at risk of trafficking or removed from trafficking situations Gather data from review of IP reports and expert opinions from KIIs, and compare to the baseline.  Use DSW administrative data to determine whether CPC-targeted communities have accessed LEAP funds and assess IP/GoG efforts to expand LEAP for children/ families affected by trafficking in the past two years. KIIs, document review
2. What are the challenges in meeting these objectives? What progress has been made in addressing challenges identified in the baseline study? What challenges have been overcome, and how? What challenges remain? Obtain information from project reports, obtain insights during KIIs and FGD Document review, KIIs, FGD
3. What training have you received on child trafficking and how have you used the training? Review project reports; obtain information through KIIs with individuals trained by the IPs. Document review, KIIs

Annex VIII: Feedback for the Endline Assessment

Contacting KIs

Contacting KIs was a very difficult process in Ghana. Contacts for many informants were out of date or the staff had rotated to new positions. In a couple of cases, informants wanted to be contacted in writing to set up the meeting. The TIP Office sent emails to each CPC POC introducing the ET. The ET contacted each POC several times to get updated contact lists. These requests were not followed-up on until the ET was in country and met with each POC in person to request their assistance. The police never did respond to our request, even after several in-person requests for this assistance.

It is recommended for the next evaluation that the POCs be engaged early in the process, perhaps by a U.S. Embassy staff personally known to the POCs. Sending the request through the U.S. Embassy might result in a faster and more complete response.  It would also be helpful if the POCs would directly contact the regional representatives to inform them about the evaluation and request their cooperation. They should also request the regional representatives to provide the district contacts and to request that they inform the district officers to also cooperate with the evaluation.

Definition of TIP in beginning of interview

While it was informative to ask KIs to explain how they define human trafficking, it was an awkward way to start the interviews. Many informants asked if they were being tested and others seemed ill at ease until this section of the interview was over.

The ET recommends that the definition questions are not put at the outset of each interview. As well, the question could be asked more specifically addressing the issues rather than asking broadly for a definition. For example, the questions might start with:

  • In your opinion, what are the key elements which make a situation a case of child trafficking?

This could be followed up with questions to probe on themes of child labor, movement and sexual exploitation;

  • What would make a situation a case of child trafficking rather than child labor?
  • Can a child be trafficked if they have not moved from the family home/community?
  • Are there any circumstances under which a child under the age of 18 can consent to prostitution?

[1] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. October 22, 2016. On file with the Evaluation Team.

[2] Ibid.

[3] These are set forth in the Direct Assistance section of the IOM SOPs: IOM, Standard Operating Procedures to Combat Human Trafficking in Ghana. 2017. https://publications.iom.int/books/standard-operating-procedures-combat-human-trafficking-ghana-emphasis-child-trafficking.

[4] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 19 – 20.

[5] Data provided to DOS as part of the Annual TIP Report process.

[6] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 25.

[7] GoG data for prosecutions and convictions was not disaggregated by the victims’ age; therefore, data provided here is for both cases involving both child and adult victims.

[8] While the HTMB was not active at the time of data collection, the TIP Office has informed the ET that as of the writing of this report, the reconstituted board of the HTMB has been approved.

[9] Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Ghana, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. June 23, 2015. Pp. 24-27.

[10] MoGCSP, CPC Semiannual Data. January 2015 to December 2017. On file with the Evaluation Team.

[11] DoS, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2017. www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2017/index.htm.

[12] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. Pp. 11, 23.

[13] Research is cited as “donor-funded research.” See DoS. Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report 2017. June 2017. P. 184. www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2017/index.htm

[14] 1,621 households surveyed. See DoS, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2017. P. 184.

[15] See DoS. Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report 2017 and DoS. Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. “Country Narratives: Ghana,” in Trafficking in Persons Report 2018. www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/index.htm

[16] Nordic Consulting Group Denmark A/S and JMK Consulting Ltd., Growing Up Free: Baseline Report. February 14, 2017. On file with the Evaluation Team.

[17] See further, annexes III-VI for the list of interviewees and protocols used.

[18] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Compact Partnership. 2016.

[19] Because the evaluation site visit coincided with the data collection period for the annual TIP Report, the TIP Office asked that the ET not request this data during KIIs, but instead utilize statistics provided by the Ghanaian ministries to the USG.

[20] To maintain respondents’ anonymity, names of KIs are not included in the annex although they were told verbally that the report may include a list of individuals interviewed. They were also informed that their responses would be anonymized and reported in a way that could not be linked to them personally.

[21] This includes 2 MoGCSP management, 2 shelter staff and 18 other DSW staff and social workers.

[22] This includes 1 MOI management, 4 GIS, 4 JUPOL (police prosecutors), 7 AHTU and 11 regular police.

[23] The ET interviewed a total of 117 unique individuals, as 8 individual participants from one FGD (with the TWG) also participated in KIIs or GIs.

[24] CCPCs are not part of the CPC and should not be confused with them. The CCPCs pre-date the CPC partnership and address a broader range of issues affecting children.

[26] See Annex VI for a copy of the informed consent agreement.

[27] As noted above, the ET did not expect to interview victims of trafficking or their guardians. However, the ET discovered in the course of one FGD that two participants were parents of child VOTs.

[28] L.I. 2219.

[29] The definition of trafficking was not asked as a routine question in FGDs, nor in KIIs with some key implementing partners. The definition was also not asked during KIIs implemented remotely by phone.

[30] IP/NGO includes both implementing partners and their sub-grantees as well as NGOs who are not sub-grantees.

[31] As noted above, far more respondents made more general statements that movement was required for TIP.

[32] Some respondents are double counted as they made more than one exception for child sex trafficking. For example, that a child could consent to CSEC and that movement was also required.

[33] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 8.

[34] This essential function shapes the focus of this evaluation, which, by design, concentrates on implementers at all levels rather than on direct beneficiaries.

[35] Parents of child TIP survivors were part of the community FGDs, but KIIs with survivors or their families for in-depth discussion about the services they received were not a part of this evaluation.

[36] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 10.

[37] At the time of the visit, the Madina government shelter in Accra was still undergoing renovation – thus, their inclusion in services described below is based upon what they cited as planned services.

[38] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. Pp. 10.

[39] Public shelters: one up to 3 months, one up to 12 months; private shelters: both no limit, usual stay 3 – 9 months.

[40] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 19.

[41] The table reflects services provided in shelters whether in-house or through partnership, as stated by KIs.

[42] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 24.

[43] Ibid. P. 11

[44] Ibid. P. 19.

[45] Ibid. P. 19.

[46] Ibid. P. 23

[47] Respondents reported their involvement between October 2015 and December 2017. The breakdown by respondent’s institution for affirmative answers is as follows: DSW (5); GPS, AHTU (3); GPS, Other Units (2); GIS (1); (IPs/NGOs (2). The breakdown by respondent’s institution for negative answers is as follows: DSW (2); GPS, AHTU (2); GIS (1); IPs/NGOs (N/A).

[48] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. Pp. 23 and 87; Nordic Consulting Group A/S and JMK Consulting, Ltd., Growing Up Free: Baseline Report. 2017. Pp. 23-29.

[49] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 25.

[50] Extracted from data provided to DoS as part of the Annual TIP Report process. Hyphens indicate no data was reported.

[51] MoGCSP, CPC Semiannual Data, January 2015 to December 2017. On file with the Evaluation Team.

[52] This interview took place in February of the following year.

[53] MoGCSP, CPC Semiannual Data, January 2015 to December 2017.

[54] Data provided to DoS as part of the Annual TIP Report process. Hyphens indicate that no data was reported.

[55] See EQ 1-A Protection (page 15) for more information on education provided in shelters.

[56] MoGCSP, CPC Semiannual Data, January 2015 to December 2017.

[57] Data provided to DoS as part of the Annual TIP Report process.

[58] MoGCSP, CPC Semiannual Data, January 2015 to December 2017. Hyphens indicate that no data was reported.

[59] An email from the MoGCSP seems to indicate that while 27 suspects were prosecuted during 2017 in the target regions, 3 are these were begun in 2017, with 24 carried over from prior years.

[60] Data provided to DoS as part of the Annual TIP Report process.

[61] Ibid.

[62] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. Pp. 25-26.

[63] USG and GoG, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. 2015. P. 4.

[64] One law enforcement officer noted that a teacher had contacted police to report a suspected case of trafficking.

[65] MoGCSP, CPC Semiannual Data, January 2015 to December 2017.

[66] USG and GoG, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. 2015. P. 15.

[67] The TIP Office has informed the ET that as of the writing of this report, the new HTMB board has been approved.

[68] USG and GoG, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. 2015. P. 7.

[69]  Hyphens (-) indicates that no data was reported. Source: CPC Semiannual Data for MoGCSP.

[70]  Respondents cited concerns related to poor planning, insufficient resource, actions which could impede collection of evidence, and safety and security for everyone involved in the rescue operations.

[71] USG and GoG, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. 2015. Pp. 24-27.

[72] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 21.

[73] Ibid. P. 30.

[74] USG and GoG, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. 2015. P. 4.

[75] USG and GoG, Child Protection Compact Partnership Framework. Addendum A. 2015. P. 14.

[76]  “Human trafficking means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, trading or receipt of persons within and across national borders …” Republic of Ghana, Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694).

[77] GoG, Human Trafficking Act. Act 694. December 8, 2005.

[78] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 8.

[79] Ibid. P. 8.

[80] Ibid. P. 23.

[81] Ibid. Pp. 10-11, 24.

[82] Ibid. P. 10.

[83] These are set forth in the Direct Assistance section of the IOM SOPs: IOM, Standard Operating Procedures to Combat Human Trafficking in Ghana. 2017. See IOM publications website: https://publications.iom.int/books/standard-operating-procedures-combat-human-trafficking-ghana-emphasis-child-trafficking.

[84] Ibid. P. 19.

[85] Ibid, P.19

[86] For the midline, percentages were taken based on the total number of KIs at each level of government who responded to the question rather than the total number of respondents at that level of government. This may or may not be comparable to the way in which the baseline was calculated.

[87] Westat, Baseline Assessment of the Child Protection Partnership Compact. 2016. P. 19.

[88] Ibid. P. 25.

[89] Ibid. Pp. 25-26.

U.S. Department of State

The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future