Estimated reading time: 10 minutes
Key Takeaways
- Detective strategy matters. Taking time to build rapport with victims in labor trafficking cases leads to higher engagement and cooperation.
- High-risk sexual exploitation requires fast action. Quick interventions protect victims but can make it harder for them to trust and engage with investigators.
- Risk level shapes decision-making. The higher the perceived danger, the more pressure to act quickly, often limiting victim-centered practices.
- Past experience influences actions. Officers sometimes rely on familiar strategies that worked in other crimes, even if they aren’t the best fit for trafficking cases.
- Plan for victim-centered responses. Advance preparation, including interpreters, advocates, and partnerships with community organizations, helps maintain trust and safety even in urgent situations.
Human trafficking cases are among the toughest that police investigators face. Unlike other crimes, human trafficking often spans overlapping jurisdictions. Victims are hidden, and offenders frequently operate within organized networks rather than alone. Every decision made in those early hours can determine whether a victim is truly safeguarded or slips through the cracks and is taken again.
A recent study from England takes a rare deep dive into what actually drives investigators’ decisions in these complex cases. It shows how quick reactions, while intended to protect, can make it harder to gain victims’ cooperation and help them feel safe enough to engage.
Labor vs. Sexual Trafficking: Why the Difference Matters
Before diving into the research, it’s important to understand that not all trafficking cases look the same. Labor trafficking often unfolds in plain sight such as in factories, construction sites, warehouses, or agricultural fields. Within the UK, victims are frequently men from within the UK itself but also Albania, Eritrea, Sudan, and Vietnam who are promised steady jobs and fair pay, only to find themselves working long hours in unsafe conditions for little or no wages. The harm in these cases is often chronic rather than immediate involving exhaustion, debt bondage, psychological abuse, and fear of deportation or retaliation. Many victims don’t even recognize themselves as victims until much later.
Sex trafficking, on the other hand, carries more immediate and visible risk. Victims, most often women and young adults, often from foreign countries, may be physically confined, coerced through violence or threats, and subjected to repeated sexual assault. The potential for rapid, life-threatening harm means police feel intense pressure to act quickly to remove victims from danger. But that urgency can come at a cost: when operations move too fast, victims may feel disoriented, fearful, and less likely to trust or cooperate with investigators.
This difference in both the type and urgency of harm turned out to be a critical factor in how detectives in three UK operations (Seine, Nile, and Thames) ****chose their investigative strategies.
Inside the Study
The study examined three police operations conducted after the UK’s Modern Slavery Act of 2015:
- Operation Seine: Labor exploitation of Czech nationals
- Operation Nile: Sex trafficking of Romanian women
- Operation Thames: Sex trafficking of Chinese women
Researchers Laura Pajon and Dave Walsh interviewed the lead investigators and reviewed operational files, court documents, and meeting notes to understand how police decided when and how to act.
Human trafficking investigations in the UK have skyrocketed, from 188 in 2016 to over 3,300 in 2021, showing just how much attention this issue has gained. Yet despite the increase in cases, many investigators still struggle to implement truly victim-centered policing, particularly in high-risk situations where quick action can make it harder for victims to feel safe and cooperate.
What They Found: Risk, Resources, and Reaction
Investigators across all three cases described two clear primary goals:
- Build evidence to prosecute offenders, and
- Safeguard and engage victims.
How those goals were prioritized, however, varied dramatically between cases.
In Operation Seine (the labor trafficking case), detectives took a slower, more deliberate approach. They gathered intelligence before rescuing any victims, used interpreters and cultural mediators from local charities, and set up a reception center to help victims feel safe. Investigators gave victims time before interviewing them with building trust first, then seeking cooperation.
That patience paid off: eleven out of fifteen victims engaged with investigators and accepted referrals for support.
As one sergeant described the approach in Seine:
“Guys [members of charities] were going out for a smoke and joining them [victims]; they kind of ended up with this kind of commonality. And just let them do the rapport building on our behalf, so then when they say, ‘right, let’s start doing the screening process,’ people were much more relaxed and more willing to speak freely about what happened.”
In contrast, Operations Nile and Thames, both sexual trafficking cases, moved quickly. Victims were arrested and taken directly to police stations in the name of safety and evidence preservation. While well-intentioned, these rapid interventions resulted in zero victim engagement.
One detective explained the rationale for Thames:
“We would arrest them [victims] first because at least we can take them to the police station, which is a place of safety. And just because we arrest someone doesn’t mean we have to charge them with an offence […]. What do we need to do with these girls? […] So, make sure they have someone or somewhere to go; if they need to get a train, we’ll drop them to the train station, or take them home, or whatever it might be, and we’ll make sure before they leave that they know where to go.”
Two very different strategies, leading to two very different outcomes.
When Good Intentions Backfire
Most officers genuinely wanted to help victims. But in high-risk sexual exploitation cases, the urgency of the situation often forced them to act quickly (sometimes within hours) to prevent further harm. Time pressure, limited resources, and a lack of specialized training meant these rapid responses often defaulted to arrests, shutdowns, or raids, rather than victim-centered or trauma-informed approaches.
As one detective explained the dilemma:
“You can’t leave an 18-year-old girl being sexually exploited for three months; we could not sign for that.”
In these situations, acting fast may prevent immediate danger, but it can also make it harder for victims to feel safe, trust investigators, and engage with the process.
By contrast, in Operation Seine, where the risk to victims was lower, investigators had the time to meet basic needs first and build rapport before moving forward with the investigation. Empathy and patience were not luxuries, they were the strategy that allowed victims to cooperate and feel supported.
It is important to note that labor trafficking victims and sexual exploitation victims are inherently different populations. The urgency, confinement, and trauma associated with sex trafficking make it naturally more difficult to build trust quickly, regardless of investigative strategy. This distinction highlights the unique challenges posed by the type of trafficking involved.
Why It’s So Hard to Get Right
Detectives in human trafficking cases are constantly making tough decisions under pressure. They work with incomplete intelligence, limited staff, and the urgent need to protect victims before more harm occurs. Unlike drugs or weapons, the “commodity” in trafficking is a person, so every choice carries real consequences for someone’s safety and trust.
The study showed that officers sometimes relied on strategies that had worked in the past, which is a form of heuristic decision-making. For example:
- Arresting victims as a safety measure: In Operations Thames and Nile, officers brought potential victims to the police station first, seeing it as a “place of safety” and a chance to interview them. While this approach may have worked in other types of crimes, in these cases it sometimes reinforced victims’ fear of law enforcement and made rapport-building more difficult.
- Prioritizing physical and financial evidence: Detectives focused on collecting concrete evidence (documents, money, or property) rather than actively engaging victims. This choice reflected past experience where physical evidence was more straightforward to use in court than victim testimony, which can be challenging and time-consuming to gather.
- Misidentifying the organized crime network: Early on, non-specialized units treated incidents in Thames and Nile as isolated events. Reliance on familiar patterns and assumptions may have contributed to this initial misidentification, delaying recognition of the larger trafficking networks.
These examples don’t show negligence. They reflect the realities of policing under pressure. Limited time, incomplete information, and high-risk situations sometimes push officers to fall back on familiar strategies, even if those strategies aren’t ideal for human trafficking investigations.
What Can Be Done To Take A Victim-Centered Approach
Because rushing can reduce trust, here are three suggestions to maintain victim-centered policing, even in fast-moving operations:
- Plan for “quick-response” situations in advance. Even in high-risk, time-sensitive cases, investigators can include trauma-informed steps if they plan ahead. This can include interpreters, advocates, rest areas, and meeting victims’ basic needs like food, clothing, or temporary shelter. Preparing these resources in advance helps ensure that rapid interventions don’t compromise victim safety or trust.
- Partner with community-based organizations (CBOs). Building relationships with local NGOs, shelters, and advocacy groups before a crisis occurs makes it easier to call them in during fast-moving investigations. CBOs can provide culturally competent interpreters, advocates, or safe spaces for victims, and can help law enforcement implement victim-centered practices even under time pressure.
- Follow evidence-based best practices for engaging victims. According to the Vera Institute’s Trafficking Victim Identification Tool guidelines, officers should:
- Establish trust and rapport before asking sensitive questions.
- Conduct interviews in safe, non-threatening locations, away from traffickers.
- Respect victims’ cultural, gender, and language needs.
- Give victims multiple opportunities to tell their story and pause if needed.
By combining pre-planning, partnerships with CBOs, and trauma-informed interviewing strategies, law enforcement can maintain victim-centered approaches even in operations that require immediate action.
Final Thoughts
The study’s message is both sobering and hopeful. In cases where detectives took the time to build relationships and understand the people they were helping, outcomes improved. Victims were more willing to engage, and investigators gathered richer, more useful information.
Even when victims were removed from immediate danger (which is always necessary) rushed actions that prioritized speed over connection sometimes made victims more fearful and less likely to cooperate. The detectives acted with care and humanity, but without time to establish rapport, that care didn’t fully translate into trust.
For labor trafficking cases, the lesson is clear: time spent building trust is time well spent.
For sexual trafficking cases, where the stakes and risks are higher, we need systems, training, and partnerships (for example, with community-based organizations) that allow for rapid action without losing humanity or connection.
Because the higher the risk, the greater the responsibility to get it right.
If you would like to reach out to the author of this study, feel free to email Laura Pajon at l.pajonmoreno@ljmu.ac.uk.
Enjoyed this post?
Get more research translated into plain language delivered straight to your inbox twice a week.
Subscribe below and let me know which topics you want to hear more about. It only takes a minute.
If you found this helpful, share it with your team or on your socials. It helps more people make sense of research that matters.
English