Next Article in Journal
A Conversation about Ethics: A Deliberative and Practice-Based Approach to Ethics in Arts Education
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring Private Investigation Agencies’ Experience of Collaboration with Law Enforcement in Investigations of Human Trafficking Cases
Previous Article in Journal
The Politicization of COVID-19 Origin Stories: Insights from a Cross-Sectional Survey in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Societies
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/soc13020038
societies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration: An Exploratory Factor Analysis Study

by
Tonisha Jones
School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Legal Studies, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49504, USA
Societies 2023, 13(2), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020038
Submission received: 28 October 2022 / Revised: 30 January 2023 / Accepted: 2 February 2023 / Published: 7 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Frontiers in Organizing Processes: Collaborating against Human Trafficking/Modern Slavery for Impact and Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To effectively address human trafficking, it is increasingly recognized that anti-human trafficking efforts need to include a collaborative approach between agencies most likely to come into contact with human trafficking victims and offenders. While literature is available that discusses the benefits and barriers to such collaboration, there is limited empirical research on the topic. Surveying professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration in a Midwest state in the United States, this exploratory factor analysis study explores their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to such collaboration. Based on the results, professionals’ perceived benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration, with capacity perceived as the underlying benefit and collaborative uncertainty, agency incongruence, an unfavorable collaborative environment, and inadequate problem framing perceived as the underlying barriers. These findings can inform anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative practice, leading to more successful collaborative outcomes. Future research should include a confirmatory factor analysis to validate the factor structure found in this study.

1. Introduction

Human trafficking is considered modern day slavery [1]. The United States (U.S.) Department of State defines human trafficking as “the act of recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion” [1] (p.5). Using global law enforcement data, the U.S. Department of State estimates that, in 2021, there were 90,354 human trafficking victims identified, 10,572 human trafficking prosecutions, and 5260 human trafficking convictions [1]. In 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act” (TVPA), the first federal human trafficking legislation designed to prevent human trafficking, prosecute offenders, and protect victims [1]. Today, all U.S. states have human trafficking legislation [2].
To effectively address human trafficking, it is increasingly recognized that anti-human trafficking efforts need to include a collaborative approach between agencies most likely to come into contact with human trafficking victims and offenders [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. While literature is available that discusses the benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration [3,4,5,6,10,11,12,13], there is limited empirical research on the topic. This exploratory factor analysis study seeks to fill this research gap. Surveying professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration in a Midwest state in the U.S., this study explores their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to such collaboration. Building understanding on this topic can help inform anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative practice, thus leading to more successful collaborative outcomes.

2. Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

Interagency collaboration, defined as “mutually beneficial and well-defined relationships entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals” [14] (p.4), is stated to be essential to effectively prevent and control human trafficking [15]. There is growing consensus among researchers and stakeholders [16,17] that human trafficking identification, investigation, prosecution, and victim service provision necessitate collaboration between the criminal justice system, human/social services, victim service providers, and allied professionals 1 to achieve meaningful short- and long-term solutions to the crime [3,4,5,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. It is suggested that there are many benefits to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration [13]. However, it is also acknowledged that barriers exist that challenge such collaboration, or prevent it altogether [12].

2.1. Benefits to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

Anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration is stated to have many benefits. For example, anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration increases learning and understanding about the issue among professionals working to address the crime as they share their knowledge about human trafficking, their perspectives concerning its causes and best solutions, and their experiences responding to human trafficking situations. This increased learning and understanding produces a deeper awareness and appreciation of the complexity of human trafficking. It can also lead to the development and implementation of more comprehensive and integrated approaches to victim service provision. Furthermore, it can even result in cultural change in organizations traditionally considered uninformed about, or unresponsive to, the issue of human trafficking, such as law enforcement agencies [3,4,5,6,9,19,23,29,36,37,38,39,40,41].
Anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration also allows agencies engaged in anti-human trafficking efforts to pool their financial and human resources to share the often substantial monetary and labor costs associated with responding to such a complex social issue. Sharing such costs provides agencies with limited budgets and personnel access to greater resources to support their anti-human trafficking activities. It also increases agency scale of coverage so their anti-human trafficking actions can impact a larger population or geographic area. Furthermore, it improves the sustainability of their anti-human trafficking efforts over the long-term. Sharing such costs can also improve the morale of individuals working to combat human trafficking because they have the financial and human resource backing necessary to carry out their work [9,40,42].
In addition, anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration allows agencies engaged in anti-human trafficking efforts to establish a common mission for responding to human trafficking, set long-term goals to achieve the mission, and identify measurable objectives to actualize the goals [33,40]. This common mission and set of goals and objectives can aid in the establishment of a formalized infrastructure and strategic framework that can help mitigate the challenges of integrating the anti-human trafficking activities of multiple and varied agency types [33,40]. A formalized infrastructure and strategic framework can not only help build agency consensus concerning how to respond to human trafficking and facilitate positive and effective communication during the implementation of anti-human trafficking activities, but can also improve the coordination of agencies’ anti-human trafficking activities making such efforts more efficient and productive [3,4,5,6,18,43]. This can improve the overall outcomes of anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative efforts with results that are more likely to achieve the TVPA’s three-pronged goal of preventing human trafficking, prosecuting offenders, and protecting victims [9].
Finally, successful anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative partnerships can lead to the establishment of positive and productive interagency relationships, increase levels of trust between agencies, and heighten agency perception that such interagency collaboration is worth the effort. This can ultimately encourage continued and future collaborative exchanges. Successful anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative case outcomes can also increase anti-human trafficking workers’ confidence in their ability and capacity to respond effectively to the crime and improve public perceptions of the legitimacy of the agencies’ collaborative actions [9,18,19,43,44].

2.2. Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

While anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration has many benefits that can result in improved human trafficking case outcomes, trying to merge multiple diverse agencies and coordinate their activities around anti-human trafficking efforts also poses several challenges [9,11,12,13,19,40,45,46]. First, anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration presents basic logistical hurdles when agencies lack financial and human resources, as well as time, to devote to such collaboration and do not possess autonomy from their parent agency to make decisions about their collaborative involvement. Additional barriers occur when professionals do not have broader agency or community support for their collaborative efforts and lack meaningful incentives to engage in such collaborative exchanges [9,11,12,13,19,40,42,45,46,47].
Difficultly can also arise because agencies engaged in anti-human trafficking efforts (again, including but not limited to the criminal justice system, human/social services, victim service providers, and allied professionals) are often fundamentally different with varying ideological frameworks, missions, and objectives. They can also have different cultures and values, professional language, policies, protocols and procedures, and perspectives on procedural justice [3,4,5,6,9,18,19,40,43,45,46,47,48].
In addition, agencies can have dissimilar levels of knowledge about human trafficking and can view the problem of human trafficking from a somewhat different perspective. In addition, they might not share the same ideas concerning the most appropriate response to the crime, or the best way to engage in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration [5,6,9,18,19,40,43,45,46,48]. Furthermore, power issues, mistrust, and territorialism over mission, resources, or jurisdiction can inhibit successful collaboration. A lack of effective leadership and the absence of key stakeholders in the planning and implementation stage of anti-human trafficking efforts can produce the same result [3,4,9,16,45,49].
For those agencies that do collaborate, factors related to the collaborative process itself can further challenge the collaborative exchange. These factors include an agency’s lack of clarity concerning their role and responsibilities during the collaboration, differing expectations for collaborative engagement, and the absence of clearly defined outcomes for the collaboration. These factors can also include a lack of team building and conflict resolution strategies to build and sustain positive interagency collaborative relationships, as well as a lack of monitoring and evaluation of the collaborative exchange to determine whether the collaborative is progressing as planned and producing the desired outcomes [9,10,19,40,45,46].
Finally, the temporary nature of many anti-human trafficking collaborative groups, characterized as “time-bound and task-specific” [43] (p. 91) can impede the establishment of a group norm and culture that is necessary to work together across agency boundaries as a part of a collaborative team [9,40,43].
Taken together, agencies’ anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative experiences and outcomes can influence whether they view collaborative participation as worth the effort, impacting the likelihood of further or new collaborative exchanges. This makes it especially important to examine the perceptions of professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration of the benefits and barriers to such collaboration. Building understanding on this topic can help inform anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative practice leading to more successful collaborative outcomes.

3. Current Study

The current study fills the research gap about professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration by answering the following research questions:
  • Do professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration perceive that there are benefits to such collaboration?
  • What do professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration perceive as the underlying benefits to such collaboration?
  • Do professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration perceive that there are barriers to such collaboration?
  • What do professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration perceive as the underlying barriers to such collaboration?

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

Using purposive sampling, this study targeted professionals formally participating in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration through anti-human trafficking task forces, commissions, and coalitions in a Midwest state in the U.S.

4.2. Measures

This study measured two constructs that included: (a) professionals’ perceptions that there are benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration; and (b) professionals’ perceptions about the underlying benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. The development of this study’s constructs was informed by human trafficking and organizational theory research [3,10,11,12,13,18,22,46,50,51,52,53,54,55].
The first construct was measured using a five-point Likert scale to rate participants’ level of agreement with the statement that there are benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. The second construct was measured using the same five-point Likert scale to rate participants’ level of agreement with a 15-item list of statements about the benefits of anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration (see Appendix A) and a 36-item list of statements about the barriers (see Appendix B).

4.3. Procedure

The participant list for this study was generated by reviewing web-based anti-human trafficking task force, commission, and coalition membership lists made available to the general public. The data for this study was collected using an online survey. In October 2013, a solicitation email that included informed consent and the survey URL was sent to the participants. Three email reminders were sent to those who had not completed the survey. The study was closed December 2013. Prior to survey dissemination, the study was reviewed and approved for human participation by the researcher’s institutional review board.

4.4. Analyses

The survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics to provide a general description of participants’ demographic characteristics. Descriptive statistical techniques were also employed to provide a general description of respondents’ perceptions that there are benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. To reduce the 15 and 36-item lists of statements and then determine their underlying factor structures, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted separately on the 15 benefit and 36 barrier items using principle axis factoring with oblique rotation [56,57,58,59,60]. The Kaiser’s criterion of one rule (K1 rule), scree plot inspection, and parallel analysis were used to identify the appropriate numbers of factors to retain [56,57,58,59,61,62,63,64]. Items with factor loadings of 0.30 or higher were interpreted to fit well with the other items in the factor [57,58,65]. The reliability of the factors was examined using Cronbach’s alpha with a value of 0.70 or higher interpreted to indicate good internal consistency [58,66]. All analyses were performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics Version 22.

5. Results

Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic characteristics and indicates that the largest percentage of participants were female (55.6 percent), identified as White (85.6 percent), and were between the ages of 55–64 (31.5 percent), followed by 35–44 and 45–54 (both 24.2 percent). The majority of participants worked in the criminal justice system (41.4 percent), were higher-level administrators (61.8 percent), and worked for a local agency (44.9 percent).
In addition, the greatest percentage of participants reported working in their current job position for less than five years (45.3 percent), followed by 11–20 years (19.6 percent) and 6–10 years (19 percent), and were employed by an agency with between 11–50 employees (40.9 percent).

5.1. Perceptions That There Are Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of participants’ perceptions that there are benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. The highest percentage of participants strongly agreed that there are benefits to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration (60.8 percent). The largest percentage of participants agreed that there are barriers to such collaboration (57.1 percent).

5.2. Perceptions of the Underlying Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

Table 3 presents the exploratory factor analysis results for the benefit items. The KMO measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis (0.924) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 2322.772, df = 105, p = 0.000). The K1 rule indicated two factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The scree test identified a one-factor solution before the last drop in the eigenvalues could be observed. Since it is stated the K1 rule tends to overestimate factors and the scree test is subjective in application [56,57,58,59,60,62,63,67], a parallel analysis was performed [57,59,62]. The results of the parallel analysis supported a one-factor solution. One factor was retained because of the convergence of the scree test and the results of the parallel analysis. The one factor solution explained 66.25 percent of the variance (Factor 1 = 66.25 percent). The factor was labeled “Capacity.” All 15 items on the factor had loadings higher than 0.30 and the factor had acceptable reliability (Factor 1 α = 0.96).
Table 4 presents the exploratory factor analysis results for the barrier items. The initial rotated solution revealed a five-factor solution. However, the fifth factor contained only two items (lack of resources; lack of time), indicating a weak and unstable factor [57]; therefore, the two items were removed. The remaining 34 items were submitted to a second exploratory factor analysis using the same procedure. The KMO measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis (0.926) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 4863.542, df = 561, p = 0.000). The K1 rule indicated four factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The scree test identified a four-factor solution before the last drop in the eigenvalues could be observed. The results of the parallel analysis supported a four-factor solution. Four factors were retained because of the convergence of the K1 rule, the scree test, and the results of the parallel analysis. The four-factor solution in combination explained 69.59 percent of the variance (Factor 1 = 56.57 percent, Factor 2 = 4.87 percent, Factor 3 = 4.50 percent, Factor 4 = 3.65 percent). Factor 1 contained eleven items and was label “Collaborative Uncertainty.” Factor 2 contained nine items and was labeled “Agency Incongruence.” Factor 3 contained ten items and was labeled “Unfavorable Collaborative Environment,” and Factor 4 contained four items and was labeled “Inadequate Problem Framing.” All 34 barrier items had factor loadings higher than 0.30. The four factors had acceptable reliability (Factor 1 α = 0.96; Factor 2 α = 0.94; Factor 3 α = 0.91; Factor 4 α = 0.90). Table 5 indicates the correlation between the factors ranged from moderate to high.

6. Discussion

While it is increasingly recognized that anti-human trafficking efforts require an interagency collaborative approach to effectively address the crime, and while literature exists that cites the benefits and barriers to such collaboration, there is a lack of empirical research on the topic. Building understanding on this topic can help inform anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative practice leading to more successful collaborative outcomes. This study sought to fill this research gap by examining professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration concerning their perceptions of the benefits and barriers to such collaboration. Findings emerged that can inform anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative practices, as well as future research on the topic.

6.1. Perceptions That There Are Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

In this study, professionals did perceive barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. However, the largest majority of professionals perceived benefits to such collaboration. These findings align with current literature citing such benefits and barriers [9,10,19,40,45,46], but also extend this literature with an empirical examination of professionals’ actual perceptions of their own joint efforts. The specific finding that the majority of professionals perceived benefits to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration provides confirmation of the value of agencies working together to combat trafficking. This specific finding also affirms recommendations made by human trafficking scholars, as well as professionals engaged in anti-human trafficking work, for continued interagency collaborative approaches to address the crime [18,22,23,33,35]. Future research would benefit from an empirical examination of the relationship between professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration and their perceptions concerning whether such collaborative efforts were a success and worth the effort, as well as their plans for future collaborative engagement.

6.2. Perceptions of the Underlying Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration

Underlying benefits. In this study capacity was identified as the underlying benefit to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. Within organizational theory research, capacity is conceptualized as a set of attributes that enable organizations to attain stated goals [68,69,70]. While the concept of capacity has been examined within organizational theory research in relation to the public, private, and non-profit sectors, to date, the concept has not been considered with respect to, nor applied to the topic of anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. This study contributes to current research on the topic of human trafficking by identifying the underlying benefit to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration, finding that such collaboration provides capacity—the inputs, throughputs, and outputs that can help agencies working together on anti-human trafficking activities to achieve desired collective outcomes. Future research should investigate the impact of capacity on specific anti-human trafficking activity outcomes such as human trafficking detection, case processing, and victim service provision. The results of such research could help determine whether interagency collaborative efforts do in fact produce the most effective responses to the crime, as is often asserted.
Underlying barriers. In this study, collaborative uncertainty, agency incongruence, an unfavorable collaborative environment, and inadequate problem framing were identified as the underlying barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. Within organizational theory research general barriers to interagency collaboration have been described [14,51,53,54,71,72,73,74]. While many of these general barriers have been discussed within literature on the topic of human trafficking [9,10,19,40,45], the underlying constructs of the barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration have to date, not been explored, nor identified. This study expands current research on the topic by identifying these underlying barriers, finding first that collaborative uncertainty is one such underlying barrier. This finding is consistent with organizational theory research that suggests that uncertainty about the purpose, process, and outcomes of the collaborative, the absence of deliberate efforts to build and maintain positive working relationships between collaborative members, and short-lived collaborative exchanges can impede collaborative endeavors [14,75,76,77].
Second, this study found that agency incongruence is another underlying barrier to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. This finding is also in accordance with organizational theory research that states that agencies engaged in collaborative activities often possess fundamental differences that can make collaboration a difficult or impossible task. For example, collaborating agencies may possess ideological differences causing members to tackle the same social issues in radically different ways [54,78]. In addition, agencies core missions, goals, and objectives may also vary dramatically from one another preventing necessary agreement needed to proceed with the collaborative process [3,44,54,76]. Agencies’ differing cultures and values can also prevent collaborative relationships from ever forming or can make seemingly straightforward issues difficult to tackle, resulting in a lengthy collaborative process or even stagnation [3,44,54,78]. In addition, agencies’ differing professional languages can make communication within existing collaborative partnerships very difficult. Furthermore, perceived power differences between collaborating agencies can create negative feelings, exacerbating misunderstandings, ultimately hindering the overall collaborative process [3,53,54]. Finally, variations between agencies’ basic business practices and technological systems may inhibit the operation of collaborative partnerships [44].
Third, this study found that an unfavorable collaborative environment is also an underlying barrier to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. This finding aligns with organizational theory research that suggests that a negative collaborative climate can hinder the collaborative process. It is stated that a lack of broader agency and community support for interagency collaborative efforts can render such efforts unsuccessful [14,75,76,79], Collaboration can be further challenged without the presence of effective leaders to promote, manage, and nurture the collaborative process. Collaboration can also be challenged without relevant stakeholders at the planning and implementation stages to inform and help make decisions about collaborative activities [3,54,73,76]. Collaboration can also be impeded by suspicion and mistrust among collaborative members based on agency reputation, past collaborative experiences, or a history of collaborative failures [54,72,78,80,81]. Furthermore, collaboration can be blocked when workers are not provided meaningful incentives by their parent agency to engage in collaborative exchanges or afforded the autonomy necessary to make decisions about their involvement in and contribution to the collaborative partnership [53].
Finally, this study found that inadequate problem framing is an additional underlying barrier to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration. This finding is consistent with human trafficking and organizational theory research that states that during problem framing a person’s knowledge about a problem impacts how they define the problem, and their problem definition then impacts how they approach the problem [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]. Inadequate problem framing can produce a barrier to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration because agencies engaged in anti-human trafficking efforts can possess varying levels of knowledge about human trafficking impacting the problem definition they adopt. Agencies problem definitions can contrast sharping concerning the scope, causes, and consequences of human trafficking, complicating the collaborative exchange. The problem definition adopted can then result in very different ideas held by agencies concerning the best way to address human trafficking further challenging the collaborative process. If consensus concerning an approach can be reached, agencies may still clash when trying to determine how to work together to achieve their anti-human trafficking goals. Just as future research should investigate the impact of capacity on specific anti-human trafficking outcomes such as human trafficking detection, case processing, and victim service provision, future research should also investigate the impact of the four underlying barriers on such outcomes. The results of such research could help determine what barrier type presents the most significant impediment to achieving these broader anti-human trafficking goals.

6.3. Implications

This study’s findings have important implications. First, before any anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative activities take place, collaborative group members should spend sufficient time framing the problem of human trafficking. Research states that when there is shared framing around a social problem, more cohesive group actions and successful group outcomes result [84,85,87,88,89]. Anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative group members should make deliberate efforts at the start of the collaborative exchange to ascertain group members’ levels of knowledge about human trafficking, perspectives concerning human trafficking’s status as a social problem, and ideas about the most appropriate response to the crime. These efforts can help build group consensus from which to build upon and move the collaborative process forward.
Second, after the problem of human trafficking has been sufficiently framed, to minimize the barriers associated with anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration, collaborative groups should establish a formalized infrastructure with a strategic framework to help inform and direct their efforts. At minimum, anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative groups should establish mutually agreed-upon goals and outcomes for the collaborative exchange and delineate roles and responsibilities of collative group members while working together. Collaborative groups should also standardize protocols, policies, and procedures for communication, data gathering, information sharing, and referrals, and adopt uniform mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the collaborative process and its outcomes [13,45,46,90,91], Establishing mutually agreed upon goals and outcomes can help orient and guide the group’s collaborative efforts [13,18,19,39,40,43,46].Delineating roles and responsibilities can assist in the development of mutually reinforcing work strategies [13,18,19,39,40,43,46]. Standardizing protocols, policies, and procedures can streamline the collaborative process [13,40,45,46]. Adopting uniform mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation can help provide information concerning how the collaborative group is proceeding and whether it is effective, enhancing the collaborative group’s transparency and accountability [13,18,19,39,40,43,46]. Taken together, these efforts can reduce the level of uncertainty associated with anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative efforts, decrease the difficulties of trying to merge the anti-human trafficking activities of often very incongruent agencies, and, with demonstrated collaborative successes, increase support from parent agencies and the broader community for continued collaborative efforts.
Third, once a formalized infrastructure and strategic framework has been established, agencies should provide professionals’ supports and incentives to encourage anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative engagement. Dependent upon resources available, supports can include release time to engage in anti-human trafficking activities, as well as resources, whether financial, material, or personnel-related, devoted to anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative efforts [13,18,19,39,40,43,46]. Incentives can include funding for and mandating the human trafficking interagency collaborative exchange, as well as incorporating interagency collaborative activities into position descriptions and performance reviews [13,18,19,39,40,43,46]. Such supports and incentives can provide the means necessary to build and sustain interagency collaborative partnerships. Collectively, framing the problem of human trafficking, establishing a formalized infrastructure and strategic framework, and supporting and incentivizing anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration can help enhance and sustain anti-human trafficking collaborative efforts and ultimately provide a more comprehensive and effective, response to the crime.

6.4. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although this study helps inform our understanding about professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration, it is not without limitations. First, the exploratory nature of the study in general, and the exploratory design of exploratory factor analysis in particular [57], limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the findings. Second, the state selected for the study site may not be representative of the human trafficking issue in other parts of the country. Third, the purposive sampling technique can introduce sampling bias with respondents potentially not reflecting individuals engaged in anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration throughout the state. Finally, anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative practices today may not reflect the practices present when the data was collected. Organizational theory research states that common benefits and barriers to interagency collaboration remain stable over time [92,93,94]. However, this research also suggests that extreme events can significantly alter traditional interagency collaborative approaches [95]. Recent human trafficking research supports this assertion, finding that the current COVID-19 global pandemic has greatly challenged anti-human trafficking interagency collaborative efforts [96,97,98]. Future research, through a confirmatory factor analysis, should confirm whether the underlying benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration identified in this study have in fact remained stable over time. In all, this study’s limitations restrict the generalizability of the findings and highlight the need for additional research on the topic.
Despite these limitations, this study provides an empirical examination of a topic that, to date, has receive limited attention in the broader human trafficking research. Understanding professionals’ perceptions of the benefits and barriers to anti-human trafficking interagency collaboration is vital to informing such collaborative efforts and achieving successful collaborative outcomes. Future research can benefit from a confirmatory factor analysis to validate the factorial validity of the models derived from this study’s exploratory factor analysis results [60] and determine whether the models have the same structure when applied to different populations [57]. In addition to the confirmatory factor analysis, future research can also benefit from conducting this study in other regions of the country and/or using a different sampling frame to see if this study’s findings can be replicated.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Grand Valley State University (protocol code 14-044-H 22 October 2013).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request due to privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Non-Abbreviated Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaborative Benefit Item Names

Non-Abbreviated Item Names
Benefits Include:
Increased level of trust (e.g., individuals, organizations, populations being served)
Increased consensus building (e.g., ability to collectively identify and solve a problem)
Improved outcome for end users (e.g., population being served)
Increased sustainability (e.g., activities, services)
Increased morale (e.g., individuals, organizations)
Increased scale of coverage (e.g., activities, services)
Increased communication (e.g., between individuals, organizations, populations being served)
Increased learning and understanding (e.g., about an issue, organization, services)
Improved coordination (e.g., activities, services)
Increased productivity (e.g., activities, services)
Increased efficiency (e.g., financial, operational)
Cultural change (e.g., individuals, organizations)
Increased legitimacy (e.g., individuals, organizations, issue)
Access to resources (e.g., financial, equipment, facilities, expertise, research, training, technology, staff, social networks)
Shared risk

Appendix B. Non-Abbreviated Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaborative Barrier Item Names

Non-Abbreviated Item Names
Barriers Include:
Differing expectations for collaborative engagement and output
Lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities
Lack of clearly defined outcome
Lack of monitoring and evaluation of interagency collaborative activities and efforts
Lack of conflict resolution strategies
Lack of team building strategies
Temporary nature of collaborative effort
Perceived marginalization of members
Lack of understanding of other agency/organizations member’s professional roles and responsibilities
Lack of cultural competence
Lack of willingness to truly collaborate
Organizational missions, goals and objectives that are different, conflicting, competing and/or incompatible
Organizational policies, procedures, and protocols that are different, conflicting, competing and/or incompatible
Organizational cultures and values that are different, conflicting, competing and/or incompatible
Organizational ideologies that are different, conflicting, competing and/or incompatible
Organizational data and computer systems that are different, conflicting, competing and/or incompatible
Turfism (e.g., territorialism over mission, resources, jurisdiction)
Differing professional languages
Perceived power differentials
Lack of effective communication
Lack of community support
Lack of organizational support
Lack of effective leadership
Lack of incentives (e.g., not mandated, not part of job description, not part of performance review)
Absence of key stakeholders
Lack of autonomy (i.e., discretion and independence to make decisions without immediate organizational oversight)
History (e.g., past history of interagency collaborative failures)
Confidentiality concerns
Lack of network list
Lack of trust
Lack of common mission, goals, objectives, and strategies to address human trafficking
Differing levels of knowledge about human trafficking
Lack of common problem definition concerning human trafficking
Lack of agreed upon policies, procedures, and protocols to address human trafficking
Lack of resources (e.g., financial, equipment, facilities, expertise, research, training, technology, staff, social networks)
Lack of time

Note

1
An allied professional refers to an individual working in the business and educational sector or faith-based community.

References

  1. U.S. Department of State. Trafficking in Persons Report July 2022; United States Department of State: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  2. Polaris Project. 2014 State Ratings on Human Trafficking Laws. 2014. Available online: http://www.polarisproject.org/resources/2014-state-ratings-human-trafficking-laws (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  3. Foot, K. Collaborating against Human Trafficking: Cross-Sector Challenges and Practices; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Foot, K. Multisector collaboration against human trafficking. In The Palgrave International Handbook of Human Trafficking; Winterdyk, J., Jones, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gerassi, L.; Nichols, A. Sex Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation: Prevention, Advocacy, and Trauma-Informed Practice, 1st ed.; Springer Publishing Company: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gerassi, L.; Nichols, A.; Michelson, E. Lessons learned: Benefits and challenges in interagency coalitions addressing sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. J. Hum. Traffick. 2017, 3, 285–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Heil, E.C.; Nichols, A.J. Human Trafficking in the Midwest: A Case Study of St. Louis and the Bi-State Area; Carolina Academic Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kakar, S. Human Trafficking; Carolina Academic Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sheldon-Sherman, J.A.L. The missing “p”: Prosecution, prevention, protection, and partnership in the trafficking victims protection act. Penn State Law Rev. 2012, 117, 443–501. [Google Scholar]
  10. U.S. General Accounting Office. Barriers to Interagency Coordination; GAO-00-106; United States General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  11. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Practices that Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies; GAO-06-15; U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  12. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Human Trafficking: Better Data, Strategy, and Reporting Needed to Enhance U.S. Antitrafficking Efforts Abroad; GAO-06-825; United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
  13. U.S. Government Accountability Office. A Strategic Framework Could Help Enhance the Interagency Collaboration Needed to Effectively Combat Trafficking Crimes; GAO-07-915; United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  14. Mattessich, P.W.; Murray-Close, M.; Monsey, B.R. Collaboration: What Makes in Work, 2nd ed.; Amherst, H., Ed.; Wilder Foundation: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  15. Braun, J.M. Collaborations: The key to combating human trafficking. Police Chief 2003, 70, 68–74. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hounmenou, C. A statewide coalition’s input in human trafficking policy implementation: Member organizations’ involvement and perceptions. J. Hum. Traffick. 2019, 7, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hounmenou, C. Engaging anti-human trafficking stakeholders in the research process. J. Hum. Traffick. 2020, 6, 30–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Clawson, H.J.; Small, K.M.; Go, E.S.; Myles, B.W. Needs Assessment for Services Providers and Trafficking Victims; ICF International Company: Reston, VA, USA; Caliber Associates, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  19. Clawson, H.J.; Dutch, N.; Cummings, M. Law Enforcement Response to Human Trafficking and the Implications for Victims: Current Practices and Lessons Learned; ICF International Company: Reston, VA, USA; Caliber Associates, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  20. Clawson, H.J.; Dutch, N.; Lopez, S.; Tiapula, S. Prosecuting Human Trafficking Cases: Lessons Learned and Promising Practices; ICF International Company: Reston, VA, USA; Caliber Associates, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  21. Farrell, A.; McDevitt, J.; Fahy, S. Where are all the victims? Understanding the determinants of official identification of human trafficking incidents. Criminol. Public Policy 2010, 92, 201–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Farrell, A.; McDevitt, J.; Pfeffer, R.; Fahy, S.; Owens, C.; Dank, M.; Adams, W. Identifying Challenges to Improve the Investigation and Prosecution of State and Local Human Trafficking Cases; Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice, Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  23. Farrell, A. Environmental and institutional influences on police agency responses to human trafficking. Police Q. 2014, 17, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gallagher, A.; Holmes, P. Developing an effective criminal justice response to human trafficking: Lessons from the front line. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 2008, 18, 318–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gozdziak, E.M. Identifying child victims of trafficking. Criminol. Public Policy 2010, 9, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hodge, D.R. Assisting victims of human trafficking: Strategies to facilitate identification, exit from trafficking, and the restoration of wellness. Soc. Work 2014, 59, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hopper, E. Under identification of human trafficking victims in the United States. J. Soc. Work. Res. Eval. 2004, 5, 125–136. [Google Scholar]
  28. Le, T.H.; Carrington, K.; Tran, T.H.; Nguyen, T.P.; Le, T.K.; Bui, N.G. Inter-agency cooperation to raise awareness on human trafficking in Vietnam: Good practices and challenges. Asian J. Criminol. 2018, 13, 251–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Macy, R.; Johns, N. Aftercare services for international sex trafficking survivors: Informing U.S. service and program development in an emerging practice area. Trauma Violence 2011, 12, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Macy, R. Identifying domestic and international sex-trafficking victims during human service provision. Trauma Violence Abus. 2012, 13, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mattar, M.; Slyke, S.V. Improving our approach to human trafficking. Criminol. Public Policy 2010, 9, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moossy, R. Sex Trafficking: Identifying Cases and Victims; NCJ 225759; U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
  33. National Institute of Justice. Improving the Investigation and Prosecution of State and Local Human Trafficking Cases. 2016. Available online: http://nij.gov/topics/crime/human-trafficking/pages/improving-investigation-and-prosecution-of-human-trafficking-cases.asp (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  34. Okech, D.; Morreau, W.; Benson, K. Human trafficking: Improving victim identification and service provision. Int. Soc. Work 2012, 55, 488–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, & Homeland Security. Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States 2013–2017; United States Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, & Homeland Security: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
  36. Farrell, A.; Pfeffer, R. Policing human trafficking: Cultural blinders and organizational barriers. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. 2014, 653, 46–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Farrell, A.; Owens, C.; McDevitt, J. New laws but few cases: Understanding the challenges to the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking cases. Crime Law Soc. Chang. 2014, 61, 1390168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grubb, D.; Bennett, K. The readiness of local law enforcement to engage in US anti-trafficking efforts: An assessment of human trafficking training and awareness of local, county, and state law enforcement agencies in the state of Georgia. Police Pract. Res. 2012, 13, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kaye, J.; Winterdyk, J.; Quarterman, L. Criminal justice: A case study of responding to human trafficking in Canada. Can. J. Criminol. Justice 2014, 56, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.); Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Strategy and Operations E-Guide. Available online: https://www.ovcttac.gov/TaskForceGuide/EGuide/Default.aspx (accessed on 11 May 2014).
  41. Wilson, J.M.; Dalton, E. Human trafficking in the heartland: Variation in law enforcement awareness and response. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 2008, 24, 296–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, H.; Park, T.; Quiring, S.; Barrett, D. The anti-human trafficking collaboration model and serving victims: Providers’ perspectives of the impact and experience. J. Evid. Inf. Soc. Work. 2018, 15, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farrell, A.; McDevitt, J.; Fahy, S. Understanding and Improving Law Enforcement Responses to Human Trafficking: Final Report; Northeastern University, Institute on Race and Justice: Boston, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kettl, D.F. Systems under Stress: Homeland Security and American Politics; CQ Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  45. Newton, P.J.; Mulcahy, T.M.; Martin, S.E. Finding Victims of Human Trafficking; University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  46. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Human Trafficking: Monitoring and Evaluation of International Projects Are Limited, but Experts Suggest Improvements; GAO-07-1034; United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  47. Gomez-Mera, L. The global governance of trafficking in persons: Toward a transnational regime complex. J. Hum. Traffick. 2017, 3, 303–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pijl, Y.; Oude Breuil, B.; Siegel, D. Is there such thing as ‘global sex trafficking’? A patchwork tale on useful (mis)understandings. Crime Law Soc. Chang. 2011, 56, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Joyal, R.G. How far have we come? Information sharing, interagency collaboration and trust within the law enforcement community. Crim. Justice Stud. 2012, 25, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Agranoff, R.; McGuire, M. Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management. Int. J. Public Adm. 2003, 26, 1401–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alexander, E.R. How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in Theory and Practice; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SA: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  52. Axelrod, R. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Completion and Cooperation; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  53. Huxham, C. Creating Collaborative Advantage; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  54. Huxham, C.; Vangen, S. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mandell, M.P. Community collaborations: Working through network structures. Policy Stud. Rev. 1999, 16, 42–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Beavers, A.S.; Lounsbury, J.W.; Richards, J.K.; Huck, S.W.; Skolits, G.J.; Esquivel, S.L. Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2013, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  57. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J.W. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
  58. Fabrigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T.; MacCallum, R.C.; Strahan, E.J. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 1999, 4, 272–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Henson, R.K.; Roberts, J.K. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 393–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yong, A.G.; Pearce, S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2013, 9, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cattell, R.B. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1966, 1, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pearson, R.; Mundfrom, D.; Piccone, A. A comparison of ten methods for determining the number of factors in exploratory factor analysis. Mult. Linear Regres. Viewp. 2013, 39, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  63. Velicer, W.F.; Jackson, D.N. Component analysis versus common factor-analysis-some further observations. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1990, 25, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zwick, W.R.; Velicer, W.F. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol. Bull. 1986, 99, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pohlmann, J.T. Use and interpretation of factor analysis in The Journal of Educational Research: 1992–2002. J. Educ. Res. 2004, 98, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kline, P. The Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  67. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM Statistics, 4th ed.; Sage Publications Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cairns, B.; Harris, M.; Young, P. Building capacity of the voluntary nonprofit sector: Challenges of theory and practice. Int. J. Public Adm. 2005, 28, 869–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Christensen, R.K.; Gazley, B. Capacity for public administration: Analysis of meaning and measurement. Public Adm. Dev. 2008, 28, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eisinger, P. Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food assistance programs. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2002, 31, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Berkowitz, B.; Wolff, T. The Spirit of Coalition; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kaye, G.; Wolff, T. From the Ground up: A Workbook on Coalition Building and Community Development; AHEC/Community Partners: Rocky Mount, NC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  73. Linden, R.M. Working across Boundaries: Making Collaboration Work in Government and Nonprofit Organizations; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pressman, J.L.; Wildavsky, A. Implementation; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  75. Austin, J.E. The Collaboration Challenge: How Nonprofits and Business Succeed through Strategic Alliances; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  76. Chrislip, D.D.; Larson, C.E. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference; Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gricar, B.G. Fostering collaboration among organizations. In Making Organizations Human and Productive: A Handbook for Practitioners; Meltzer, H., Nord, W.R., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1981; pp. 403–420. [Google Scholar]
  78. Genefke, J.; McDonald, F. Effective Collaboration: Managing the Obstacles to Success; Palgrave: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovations in Natural Resource Management; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kramer, R.M.; Brewer, M.B.; Hanna, B.A. Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research; Kramer, R.M., Tyler, T.M., Eds.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 357–389. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bouwen, R.; Taillieu, T. Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: Developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 14, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bredthauer, R. Problems of framing and implementing multi-ethnic policing. Eur. J. Polic. Stud. 2015, 2, 482–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Croteau, D.; Hicks, L. Coalition framing and the challenge of a consonant frame pyramid: The case of a collaborative response to homelessness. Soc. Probl. 2003, 50, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Drakulich, K.M. Explicit and hidden racial bias in the framing of social problems. Soc. Probl. 2015, 62, 391–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Farrell, A.; Fahy, S. The problem of human trafficking in the U.S.: Public frames and policy responses. J. Crim. Justice 2009, 37, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gray, B. Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 14, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Noy, D. When framing fails: Ideas, influence, and resources in San Francisco’s homeless policy field. Soc. Probl. 2009, 56, 223–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Payne, T.C.; Gallagher, K.; Eck, J.E.; Frank, J. Problem framing in problem solving: A case study. Polic. Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 2013, 36, 670–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. David, F. Building the infrastructure of anti-trafficking: Information, funding, responses. Criminol. Public Policy 2010, 9, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Preble, K.M.; Nichols, A.; Owens, M. Assets and logic: Proposing an evidenced-based strategic partnership model for anti-trafficking response. J. Hum. Traffick. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Heath, R.G.; Isabell, M.G. Interorganizational Collaboration: Complexity, Ethics, and Communication; Waveland Press, Inc.: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  93. Madden, J. Inter-Organizational Collaboration by Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  94. Sydow, J.; Berends, H. Managing Inter-Organizational Collaborations: Process Views; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bynander, F.; Nohrstedt, D. (Eds.) Collaborative Crisis Management: Inter-Organizational Approaches to Extreme Events; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hanly, I.; Gauci, J. COVID-19′s impact on anti-trafficking efforts: What do we know? J. Mod. Slavery 2021, 6, 7–29. Available online: https://slavefreetoday.org/journal_of_modern_slavery/v6i2a01_COVID19sImpactonAntiTraffickingEffortsWhatdoweknow.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2022). [CrossRef]
  97. Keegan, B. Isolation, economic desperation, and exploitation: Human trafficking and the COVID-19 crisis. In Social Problems in the Age of COVID-19; Muschert, G., Budd, K., Lane, D., Eds.; Bristol University Press: Bristol, UK, 2000; pp. 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rafferty, Y. Promoting the welfare, protection and care of victims of child trafficking during th coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. J. Child. Serv. 2020, 15, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Characteristics (n = 178).
Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Characteristics (n = 178).
Participants
Variablen(%)
Gender
  Male78(43.8)
  Female99(55.6)
  Transgender1(0.6)
Race
  White149(85.6)
  Non-white25(14.4)
Age
  18–3427(15.2)
  35–4443(24.2)
  45–5443(24.2)
  55–6456(31.5)
  65 or more9(5.1)
Position Level
  Higher-level administrator110(61.8)
  Manager26(14.6)
  Supervisor17(9.6)
  Line worker or equivalent25(14.0)
Length of Employment
  Less than 5 years81(45.3)
  6–10 years34(19.0)
  11–20 years35(19.6)
  21–30 years18(10.1)
  More than 30 years11(6.1)
Type of Agency
  Criminal justice system74(41.1)
  Human/social services57(31.7)
  Victim service provision21(11.7)
  Allied28(15.6)
Agency Level
  State25(14)
  Local80(44.9)
  Non-governmental43(24.2)
  Private30(16.9)
Number of Agency Employees
  1–1049(27.1)
  11–5074(40.9)
  51–25036(19.9)
  250+22(12.2)
Note: Allied = Business, educational sector, and faith-based community.
Table
Table 2. Participants’ Perceptions that there are Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration (n = 168).
Table 2. Participants’ Perceptions that there are Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration (n = 168).
Perceptions
There Are Benefits to Anti-Human TraffickingThere Are Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking
Interagency CollaborationInteragency Collaboration
n(%)n(%)
Strongly agree101(60.8)27(16.1)
Agree60(20.3)96(57.1)
Neither agree nor disagree5(1.7)35(20.8)
Disagree------7(4.2)
Strongly disagree------3(1.8)
Table
Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Participants’ Perceptions of the Benefits to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration Items Using Principle Axis Factoring and Promax Rotation (n = 156).
Table 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Participants’ Perceptions of the Benefits to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration Items Using Principle Axis Factoring and Promax Rotation (n = 156).
Factor 1h2
Abbreviated Item Names 1Capacity
Benefits Include:
  Increased levels of trust0.850.71
  Increased consensus building0.840.71
  Improved outcomes for end users0.840.71
  Increased sustainability0.830.69
  Increased morale0.830.69
  Increased scale of coverage0.830.69
  Increased communication0.820.68
  Increased learning and understanding0.820.68
  Improved coordination0.820.67
  Increased productivity0.820.66
  Increased efficiency0.780.61
  Cultural change0.770.60
  Increased legitimacy0.750.57
  Access to resources0.740.54
Shared risk0.620.38
Eigenvalues9.94
Variance explained (%)66.25
α0.96
Note. 1 See Appendix A for non-abbreviated item names; h2 = communality. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.924; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Chi-square = 2322.772, df = 105, p = 0.000.
Table
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Participants’ Perceptions of the Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration Items Using Principle Axis Factoring and Promax Rotation (n = 138).
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for the Participants’ Perceptions of the Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration Items Using Principle Axis Factoring and Promax Rotation (n = 138).
Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4h2
CollaborativeAgencyUnfavorableInadequate
UncertaintyIncongruenceCollaborativeProblem
Abbreviated Item Names 1 EnvironmentFraming
Barriers Include:
  Differing expectations for collaborative1.01−0.05−0.190.070.78
  Lack of clarity roles/responsibilities0.87−0.06−0.210.280.72
  Lack of clearly defined outcome0.76−0.050.090.140.76
  Lack of monitoring/evaluation collaborative0.760.060.010.070.73
  Lack of conflict resolution strategies0.700.100.18−0.050.80
  Lack of team building strategies0.70−0.040.26−0.030.75
  Temporary nature collaborative effort0.660.020.110.060.61
  Perceived marginalization of members0.650.200.13−0.080.77
  Lack of understanding other agency0.570.070.110.090.58
  Lack of cultural competence0.49−0.160.390.080.58
  Lack of willingness to truly collaborate0.490.050.33−0.000.66
  Organizational missions/goals/objectives that are DCCI−0.120.97−0.110.200.85
  Organizational policies/procedures/protocols that are DCCI0.030.97−0.09−0.050.81
  Organizational cultures/values that are DCCI−0.030.91−0.010.060.83
  Organizational ideologies that are DCCI−0.070.780.070.120.72
  Organizational data/computer systems that are DCCI0.100.500.100.100.50
  Turfism0.290.380.25−0.900.63
  Differing professional languages0.010.370.340.080.51
  Perceived power differentials0.340.360.29−0.180.67
  Lack of effective communication0.270.320.30−0.060.59
  Lack of community support−0.18−0.130.940.230.72
  Lack of organizational support−0.110.070.610.330.62
  Lack of effective leadership0.150.180.59−0.150.62
  Lack of incentives0.09−0.050.530.230.49
  Absence of key stakeholders0.28−0.080.510.110.56
  Lack of autonomy0.080.180.510.050.55
  History0.270.180.49−0.230.59
  Confidentiality concerns0.020.090.490.260.53
  Lack of network list0.26−0.150.400.190.39
  Lack of trust0.210.360.38−0.050.71
  Lack of common MGOS to address HT0.090.160.050.770.89
  Differing levels of knowledge about HT0.21−0.080.110.610.58
  Lack of common problem definition HT−0.070.120.300.590.64
  Lack of agreed upon PPP to address HT0.410.30−0.190.440.70
Eigenvalues19.24 1.661.531.24
Variance explained (%)56.57 4.874.503.65
α0.960.940.910.90
Note. Values in bold indicate highest factor loading; 1 see Appendix B for non-abbreviated item names; h2 = communality; DCCI = different, conflicting, competing, incompatible MGOS = mission, goals, objectives, strategies; HT = human trafficking; PPP = policies, procedures, protocols. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.926; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Chi-square = 4863.542, df = 561, p = 0.000.
Table
Table 5. Factor Correlation Matrix of the Barrier Items.
Table 5. Factor Correlation Matrix of the Barrier Items.
FactorFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4
CollaborativeAgencyUnfavorableInadequate
UncertaintyIncongruenceCollaborativeProblem
EnvironmentFraming
Collaborative Uncertainty1.00
Agency Incongruence0.7171.00
Unfavorable Collaborative Environment0.7550.7181.00
Inadequate Problem Framing0.5130.4770.457 1.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jones, T. Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration: An Exploratory Factor Analysis Study. Societies 2023, 13, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020038

AMA Style

Jones T. Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration: An Exploratory Factor Analysis Study. Societies. 2023; 13(2):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jones, Tonisha. 2023. "Perceptions of the Benefits and Barriers to Anti-Human Trafficking Interagency Collaboration: An Exploratory Factor Analysis Study" Societies 13, no. 2: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020038

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop