Commission

shelters that specialise in assistance to trafficked persons are functional, because even though shelters
exist, either they have no personnel or they have not received permission to operate.
Unsuitable accommodation
Housing for trafficked persons in the UK is provided through the UK NRM to all potential victims,
however the research showed that the standard varies considerably on the basis of geographical
location and type of victim. In particular the use of private, non-shelter based, accommodation
without a permanent staff presence creates a number of difficulties for trafficked persons. Problems
encountered include: insecurity of mixed-sex accommodation where many male occupants had high
levels of alcohol dependency, physical abuse, threats and isolation. One interviewee described that
in order to cope, he spent as much time out of the accommodation as possible and another said she
had not spoken to someone from her own country or who spoke her language in three months.
Particularly poor standards of accommodation was reported by trafficked persons in the UK who
had applied for asylum and subsequently been moved to asylum-seeker accommodation with a lower
level of support. They described the accommodation as filthy, isolated on the outskirts of a city and
said it made them feel unsafe and threatened.
In the Netherlands, there is a lack of follow up accommodation after the first crisis support offered
to trafficked persons for three months. Also some trafficked persons report not being accommodated
in dedicated shelters:
“I went to a shelter with alcohol and drug addicts, and ex-detainees. I was stressed all the time.”
– Chike
Disempowering approaches to shelter provision
In the UK some trafficked persons reported serious problems with their accommodation provision.
This included bedbugs in their bedroom, mixed-sex accommodation or inappropriate accommodation.
However, there was a common fear amongst victims of raising concerns with support staff,
as this was considered to be making too many demands on staff. Whilst the relationship between
trafficked persons and shelter staff was generally good, the idea that services were being provided
out of benevolence, rather than as a duty, prevented trafficked persons from raising serious issues
of concern.
In the Netherlands, some of the trafficked persons interviewed complained about the behaviour
and knowledge of some professionals in the shelter, including those in specialised shelters. Some
critiqued staff behaviour, such as arriving late to an appointment and not using the auto-reply when
abroad, thus leaving a client waiting for two weeks. Others questioned the knowledge and experience
of staff:
“We need trained professionals. They need training about labour exploitation.” (Focus group
discussion, victims of trafficking, 2015)
Professionals during the focus group discussion on support also discussed this topic. One professional,
in line with victims’ comments, stated that in some regions social workers, including herself,
have little knowledge about labour exploitation.
Inadequacy of outreach provision
In the Netherlands, support professionals observe that people trafficked for labour exploitation are
relatively independent and seem to prefer outreach support to shelter support. However, a case
was noted in which those in outreach support found it hard to access available care. In one recent
case involving a large group of victims, some individuals were unable to access regular care, and
those who did access care complained that it took a long time.
Victims of trafficking in the UK who do not need or wish to stay in NRM accommodation including,
for example, asylum seekers who are already accommodated in National Asylum Support Service
26