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

5. Question 3 – National Referral Mechanism

Question: Does the guidance clearly explain how to identify and refer a potential victim of trafficking or exploitation to the National Referral Mechanism?

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Positive comments

Some respondents stated that the guidance clearly explains the NRM referral process, including the role of First Responder Organisations, consent requirements, adult and child referral routes and the stages of NRM decision-making. The Victim and Recovery Journey Overview and emphasis on informed consent were also considered helpful.

Need for further clarity

The principal concern expressed by some respondents was that, while the mechanics of referral are generally clear, there is considerably less guidance on identifying a potential victim in the first place. Respondents felt that the guidance may assume prior knowledge and requested greater clarity on indicators of trafficking and exploitation. Survivor feedback also highlighted how manipulation, fear of authorities and lack of awareness of available support can delay recognition and disclosure.

Respondents also requested clearer guidance on how First Responders should exercise professional judgement, when consideration of a referral should be triggered and who should take responsibility where more than one organisation could act.

Further clarity was requested around informed consent, capacity and arrangements for children transitioning into the adult NRM process.

Need for practical information

Respondents suggested including or signposting to practical indicators of trafficking and exploitation, supported by examples or case studies. A flowchart showing the pathway from identification through safeguarding, consent and referral was frequently suggested, alongside information for practitioners who are not themselves First Responders. Greater practical information on what happens following referral, including potential outcomes and interruptions to the NRM journey, was also requested.

Suggested additions to the Guidance

Suggested additions included clearer information on First Responder responsibilities, training and stronger links to current NRM and identification resources; greater explanation of informed consent, access to legal advice for adults and children, and independent advocacy.

Respondents sought clearer information on the Duty to Notify process, reconsideration and withdrawal processes within the NRM, including the relevant timescales and the roles of different competent authorities.

Respondents also considered that further explanation of how these processes interact with Child Protection and ASP responsibilities would help improve understanding of referral pathways, decision-making processes and the wider safeguarding framework.

Other concerns or comments

Respondents also highlighted the need for accessible and consistently explained terminology and for links, forms and contact information to remain current. Wider comments emphasised that identification and referral should form part of a trauma-informed and safeguarding response rather than being presented primarily as an administrative process.