Support for adult victims of trafficking and exploitation - guidance: consultation analysis

18. Question 16 – Additional Comments

Question: Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the guidance?

Suggested additions to the Guidance

Some of the main suggestions not included in other sections of the Guidance were:

• The guidance should strengthen references to the gendered nature of trafficking and exploitation. Women who have experienced trafficking have often experienced multiple forms of abuse and exploitation.
• Mechanisms for regular review of the Guidance: suggestions here included the establishment of a working group, governance structure or other form of standing mechanism for periodic review and improvement, drawing on providers, partner agencies, and people with lived experience, and cross-governmental sectors such as health and Social Care, Housing, Social Security, legal services amongst others.
• Clear information on capacity assessment, consent, and circumstances where other protective duties apply would support more consistent practice. Emphasising the importance of trauma-informed, relationship-based approaches is important as is the recognition that engagement is often non-linear, and individuals may not identify as victims or may disengage from services. Survivors emphasised that many survivors experience significant mistrust of statutory authorities as a result of previous experiences of exploitation, coercion or interactions with authorities in their country of origin or the UK. The Guidance could more explicitly acknowledge how this mistrust may affect disclosure, consent to referral, engagement with support and participation in legal or immigration processes, and encourage practitioners to recognise trust-building as an ongoing process.
• Include clear guidance on how age-disputed victims should be supported as well as the responsibilities of the various actors and service providers interacting with this client group.
• Independent quality assurance: Section 5.5 requires providers to establish internal quality assurance processes. Internal assurance cannot provide the independent scrutiny needed to drive improvement or to give survivors confidence that support meets a consistent standard. Scottish Government should consider how independent quality assurance might be provided, whether through an existing inspectorate or otherwise.
• The Guidance need to make provision for independent advocacy. If survivors need to question and, where necessary, challenge the decisions made about their support, few may be in a position to do this alone, particularly where there are language barriers, complex trauma, or limited experience of statutory systems. The support provider cannot fill this role without conflict: the same organisation that conducts the assessment and delivers the support cannot also be the independent voice that challenges it. Therefore, an independent advocate is needed.
• Survivors stated that references throughout the Guidance to fixed periods of support, including the 45-day recovery period and the 90-day support period, do not reflect the reality that many survivors experience lengthy delays before receiving a CG decision. The Guidance needs to acknowledge that support planning should take account of delays within the NRM, with continuity of support where appropriate to reduce the risk of survivors disengaging from services or becoming vulnerable to re-exploitation.