To mark our tenth anniversary, we are releasing a new feature which reflects on how the anti-trafficking field has evolved, and where it might be – or should be – going in the future. As part of this project we sat down with Nick Grono, CEO of the Freedom Fund and one of the most influential individuals within the anti-trafficking field over the last decade. The conversation focused upon two main themes: learning and adaption, and critics of anti-trafficking policies.
The anti-trafficking community's capacity to learn and adapt is a crucial factor determining its future trajectory. For some of anti-trafficking's critics, who see the same talking points and policies getting repeated time and time again, the question is whether the anti-trafficking community is capable of learning at all. We asked Nick what has and has not changed in the last decade, from his perspective. How has the field learned, and what does this mean for its evolution in the future?
Our second theme focuses on the impact, or lack thereof, of anti-trafficking's critics. Since the mid-1990s, critics of dominant approaches to anti-trafficking have been trying their best to make the case for multiple course corrections. However, these efforts don’t appear to have had much effect on actual policies and practices. This has resulted in widespread frustration amongst anti-trafficking's critics, who feel that they are shouting into the void.
It is easy for critics to blame 'the mainstream' for not listening to their arguments. But it can also be said that the sweeping condemnations and maximalist positions favoured by critics make it harder for such messages to find a receptive audience. We asked Nick how he engages with critics, where he thinks they go wrong with their messaging, and how a more constructive dialogue between practitioners and critics could emerge.
We greatly appreciate Nick sharing his thoughts here. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Joel Quirk (BTS): Freedom Fund has existed for over a decade. Do you think the field has evolved in a positive direction in that time? Are there specific wins you would point to?
Nick Grono (Freedom Fund): Yes, the field has evolved significantly, and largely in a positive way. The Freedom Fund has contributed to this positive shift, both as a policy actor and implementer.
There’s been a move away from the NGO raid and rescue model to more thoughtful, engaged interventions. That old model hasn’t disappeared entirely. But there has been a dramatic shift in understanding the need for evidence-based interventions, and the importance of investing in research to generate that evidence.
We’ve also seen a shift to ensuring people with lived experience, such as survivor leaders, are at the centre of the debate. We still have a long way to go; there’s still a lot of tokenism. But there’s good work being done around this that just wasn’t on the agenda before.
Ten years ago, survivor engagement was largely a box-ticking exercise, if it happened at all. “Hey, let’s get a survivor to speak on the panel and tell us their story of pain and suffering” – that sort of thing. And while there is still too much of that, there’s more nuance now.
Finally, there’s also been positive movement in the human rights and due diligence space, particularly regarding supply chains. Those would be the wins I would single out. The anti-slavery space is much more thoughtful than it was a decade ago. We’re in a better place now.
Joel: Where would you position the Freedom Fund within this larger story?
Nick: Freedom Fund has always been in all those spaces – centring survivors, the need for better evidence, and human rights and due diligence – but over the years we’ve evolved within those spaces. We used to be more about service delivery to grassroots partners, and less about system change.
We’ve become more sophisticated in thinking about systems change, and more invested in survivor leadership. We’re also investing more in research. So, our thinking has evolved but hasn’t fundamentally changed.
Joel: BTS launched in 2014, the same year as Freedom Fund. How did you perceive us at the time? I’ve often wondered if we looked, from a practitioner standpoint, as a bunch of trolls who were attacking the people who were trying to fix things, rather than providing constructive points of intervention. What have been your impressions of BTS over the years?
Nick: I remember being irritated by a couple things early on, like the reflexive criticism of the Global Slavery Index. Not that it wasn’t open to all sorts of critiques on quality of data and methodology back then. But BTS’s critique didn’t show any attempt to engage in the underlying argument about the importance of measurement.
Another one was the work on philanthrocapitalism. I remember thinking, “Fair enough, but we can apply exactly the same critiques to something like university funding. We shouldn’t use this critique to try and de-legitimise the work without analysing the work itself. Let’s focus on the work.”
At least, that’s my approach. I understand that there’s an argument to be had there, but I felt the focus was too limited. There wasn’t enough attention on the actual implementation.
Joel: So you saw it as bomb throwing without trying to find ways to make things better?
Nick: I recognise I have my own sensitivities and biases around this, but yes. I had the perception that that was the approach, rather than something that offered strategic critiques here and there alongside a genuine recognition of other perspectives.
Every now and then BTS would publish a straw-man piece offering a view that differed from its central theses, but these did feel somewhat token. When I was asked to do a piece for your philanthrocapitalism series, for example, I thought I had to write something – even though I knew it would not be well received by your constituency – to offer a different perspective. I think I was the only article defending the role of big philanthropy, with seven or eight others largely criticising it.
Joel: How much does it matter that BTS was started by academics with PhDs based at universities? I’ve been regularly told that academic arguments are too divorced from practical realities to have immediate traction. Was there an ivory tower egghead issue?
Nick: Not necessarily. Freedom Fund has always valued academics and research. We’ve funded 68 research partners across 24 universities, including big international universities and smaller universities in Thailand, Brazil, Nepal and India. We’ve also funded research partners based in think tanks in Africa, Brazil and India. We see academic expertise as key to what we do.
How can we have an impact on the ground? How do we help support, work with, or shift power? How do we do it better? There’s absolutely a role for academic research to play in that
I see particular value in work that’s trying to answer specific questions, so as to support people to do better work on the ground. I don’t have as much time for quite esoteric work that only resonates with a small academic base. It doesn’t, to my mind, add much value.
I think it’s important that we always come back to these questions: how can we have an impact on the ground? How do we help support, work with, or shift power? How do we do it better? There’s absolutely a role for academic research to play in that.
Joel: One thing academics always like to talk about is definitions and terms. I’m wondering if you see that sort of conceptual debate as esoteric or not. Do you think there’s a valid conversation to be had about what we call things? Or do you ultimately think it’s the underlying issues and not what we label them that’s most important?
Nick: I feel less need to join terminological debates like ‘human trafficking’ versus ‘modern slavery’ than I used to. They’re legitimate debates, but not particularly relevant to our work.
At the Freedom Fund, we are focused on outcomes. We are interested in what the communities we’re working with care about, and arguments about terminology aren’t their main concern. They care about practical policy. They care about approaches and solutions that put them at the centre, and that help them engage in those changes.
Of course, terminology is important in particular contexts. But debates over words often end up treating terminology as the be all and end all. To me, terminology is a means to an end. When we work in India or in Africa, we don’t talk about modern slavery. We talk about bonded labour or child domestic work for example. But when I’m in the U.S. or Europe talking with funders, I’ll use terminology that resonates in that space.
It’s about adapting the message to the audience. We can’t be hyper local and not be deeply influenced by what works, what resonates, what’s offensive, and what’s not offensive in that particular context.
Freedom Fund’s role is to raise money from interested parties and get it to the organisations that can make the most of it. We currently fund about 150 grassroots and community-based organisations. Those organisations care about terminology inasmuch as they don’t want those subject to exploitation to be labelled as slaves – which we would never do. But I would say that the majority of them don’t worry about terminology in the way academics do. They care more about the fact that people are subject to extreme exploitation, and that if they have money and resources, they can make a real difference.
THE COMPLETE BTS ARCHIVE
BTS articles are accessible, engaging and packed with cutting-edge analysis. They're perfect for scholars, students, practitioners, activists, and anybody else wanting to better understand exploitation in the global economy today.
For our tenth anniversary, we've collected everything we've ever published into a single, searchable e-handbook. Containing 1000 articles from 800 authors, this book has you covered no matter where your interests lie. A gift to you, our readers, from us.
Joel: Another shift in the anti-trafficking field has been the growing consideration of workers’ rights on the ground. We have seen more people join conversations about sex workers’ rights, migrants’ rights, unions, and collective organising than ever before. Do you think this is at least partly the result of critical scholarship on these issues?
Nick: There’s definitely been a change, and I’m sure that academic conversations helped influence that. Many of our staff have an academic background and are close to the literature. They’re all experts and passionate about translating those learnings into action.
But I think there have been a lot of influences. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has been a relatively sophisticated actor in this space, and their labour rights-based measurement of forced labour has also been influential. To my mind, its overall approach has been more impactful than the response to trafficking from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which is more about a law enforcement approach.
An understanding of labour rights, and the ILO’s role in that, have been important. This is why Walk Free, the Australian organisation that created the Global Slavery Index, among other things, was keen to partner with the ILO on modern slavery and forced labour for its index.
Joel: Some critics argue that anti-trafficking is code for anti-immigration. How do you engage with criticisms like that, which effectively challenge the validity of the field as a whole?
Nick: First off, when it comes to governments, I don’t think that governments necessarily use the anti-trafficking concept to crack down on irregular migration. They don’t need to. I think they’re very happy to crack down on irregular migration regardless.
And of course, governments are not the only actors here. I believe overly broad and simplistic criticisms that seem to lump all actors, such as governments, international organisations, and civil society, into the anti-trafficking pot, and say that governments are anti-immigration and that trafficking is migration and therefore civil society is anti-migration is just simplistic, and wrong. These critiques don’t address the reality on the ground or the work of civil society.
Anti-trafficking is broader than just government action or legislation, and most civil society actors in this space are deeply committed to reducing exploitation. They have a very clear goal. The Freedom Fund doesn’t exist to prevent migration. It exists to tackle extreme exploitation wherever it is most prevalent, and in whatever form, be it child sex-trafficking, forced labour, forced marriage etc.
Joel: So would you say that critics use low-hanging fruit to make unfair generalisations about ‘anti-trafficking work’, rather than really engaging with the full spectrum of anti-trafficking?
Nick: Academics pride themselves on precision, and it’s important to maintain that when you criticise. If you’re critical of the practices or approach of a particular government or organisation, there’s a legitimate debate to be had.
Be specific about particular practices, rather than criticising anti-trafficking as a whole
But it’s not helpful to say that you disagree with the extreme practices of certain actors or groups, and – because those groups call themselves anti-trafficking organisations – then try and paint the entire anti-trafficking field with that brush, and declare that all anti-trafficking non-profits are deeply flawed. It’s ridiculous to lump them all together. Be specific about particular practices, rather than criticising anti-trafficking as a whole.
Sometimes BTS does this well. The domestic work series you did at BTS was great. I don’t agree with all of it, but there were perspectives and nuance and an examination of the complexity, and it made me think. What we as practitioners would find useful – at least when we’re the target audience – would be to have more of those nuanced discussions, and the ability to bring more localised perspectives and specific experiences.
Joel: What do the critics of anti-trafficking overlook? Are there things that could lead to a more productive conversation with the critics?
Nick: I think it depends in part on the incentives driving the critique, doesn’t it?
I would say you’d generally get a much more thoughtful reception from practitioners if you came up with nuanced, thoughtful policy and engagement on practices. But if you’re an academic, your incentive structure might not make that exchange your top priority. It might push you to do something else: like label all anti-trafficking organisations as, for example, being church-based in origin and focused on legal approaches, without recognising that anti-trafficking organisations span the spectrum from those that are survivor led, to those focussed on labour rights, to those bringing a systems approach to shifting power, to those prioritising justice reform.
My first nonprofit job was working for International Crisis Group, which made its name by producing in-depth research reports from on the ground – not from ivory towers in DC and London. At the beginning of every report there would be a couple of pages of recommendations that were targeted at key actors and policymakers. The hardest part of the report was always doing the policy recommendations.
It’s easy to say, “let’s implement the rule of law and reform governance.” You can apply that to every country in the world, and it’ll get you nowhere. It’s much harder to understand the different factors and constraints in each context, and to try and come up with specific and thoughtful recommendations.
Joel: There is a further argument to be made here that governments and other stakeholders tend to pick and choose from amongst those lists of recommendations, so it is not really about what civil society organisations say, but what people with power end up doing with their work. How do you address economic and political interests within your theory of change?
Nick: All the numbers indicate that rates of trafficking and exploitation are getting worse. That’s a real challenge for all of us, given the huge increase in engagement on these issues over the last decade – from academics, including BTS, and civil society and international organisations and governments.
Freedom Fund’s theory of change is that we work with clusters of grassroots organisations – there’s no way we could fund the tens of thousands of organisations that need support, of course, so we are working with a subset of those – and through this process we aim to discover and highlight really effective, thoughtful interventions. If we work for ten years with these partners, providing them with resources, helping them to become sustainable, and supporting them to build country-based movements, there will be a positive impact in those regions – even if the overall trend remains negative.
Cameron Thibos
Ultimately, we believe our greatest impact can come by demonstrating to governments – source country governments and donor governments alike – what works, and encouraging them to invest in and amplify those approaches. So, for example, we have seen positive change in Nepal where their government has recognised the legitimacy and impact of the Harawa-Charawa network that we have supported for a decade in advocating for change for bonded workers there.
We have seen significant impact with the U.S. government over the last decade in particular. The government, under all administrations, has increased funding for anti-trafficking initiatives and prevalence research, and supported a grassroots approach to tackling sex-trafficking and the trafficking of women and girls into domestic servitude. More recently the government has been funding a lot of work on exploitative child domestic work. If we can help influence the U.S. government’s interventions in this area, that is huge and positive impact.
Joel: So there is no way of getting around the need for state endorsement and support?
Nick: Yes, in terms of the state that’s funding you, but also the state where you’re working. I think we’ve been a significant influence in Ethiopia on support for efforts that reduce the exploitation of women and girls migrating to the Middle East. That’s an issue we’ve been working on for around nine years.
Ultimately, if you don’t influence the state, you’re not going to achieve change on a sufficient scale.
I see Freedom Fund as having a direct impact, building an evidence base, and amplifying change through research. This is where the research advocates come in. They can tell us, for example, that they have seen a measurable change that can be largely attributed to particular interventions. And then we can take that evidence to advocate to governments at a national level, and to our funders to try to drive change.
Joel: There are now so many different issues under the umbrella of anti-trafficking. Doesn’t bunching them all together under one label risk trying to create one-size-fits-all solutions, when the reality is that each issue needs its own action and intervention?
Nick: It depends on who we’re talking about. Freedom Fund works on forced marriage in Myanmar, child sex trafficking in Bangladesh and Brazil, and other issues in other places.
If someone questioned us by saying, “you’re an anti-trafficking organisation, but you’re working all of these different issues,” my response would be that we’re actually an anti-forced marriage organisation, and an anti-child sexual exploitation organisation, and an anti-forced labour organisation. Maybe it’s a legitimate criticism for some groups. But we don’t have a problem with seeing the different issues under the umbrella term of anti-trafficking.
I think the hardest work today is finding common ground with those we disagree with. Our failure to do so is contributing to utter dysfunction
Joel: People often talk about anti-trafficking as a movement, but while I see moments of solidarity, I’m not really convinced it qualifies as a movement. Do you see it as such?
Nick: We never talk about a global movement, but we do talk about movements, such as the Harawa-Charawa movement. As for solidarity, I think the hardest work today is finding common ground with those we disagree with. Our failure to do so is contributing to utter dysfunction. The fault lies on the left and the right.
There’s an organisation called More in Common that’s looking at ways to bring opposing groups together. Sometimes it’s about framing, sometimes it’s about understanding what the divisions are. But the goal is finding a middle ground.
Their work on immigration is fascinating. They’re looking at the moral foundations of arguments and how people think about fairness, equality and loyalty. If you frame immigration around fairness, then your response might be “well this is unfair, people are coming in and taking our jobs, taking our school places.” But you can change that framing to say, “we’ve got a shortage of care staff and a shortage of hospitality workers. Is there a way that we can have a migration system that contributes to outcomes that we all want?” That brings you to a different place.
If we really want to decry what’s happening in the trafficking space in our countries, don’t we have to speak across the spectrum? We need to engage with those who want tough law enforcement, just as we need to engage with those who say the issue has more to do with workers’ rights than criminal justice – as BTS does.
More in Common put out a great report a few years ago called Hidden Tribes, where they were looking at segmentation of the population. They labelled one segment as “progressive activists”, which would be on the far left at about 8% of the population. And the segment on the opposite end was “devoted conservatives”, at about 6% of the population.
These are small population groups on either end of the spectrum, but they dominate the social media landscape. Then there are all the other groups in the middle, which More in Common termed “the exhausted majority”. They’re seeing the barrage of stuff coming in, and deciding to stay silent because they don’t want to engage.
I don’t think it’s useful to get stuck on either of the edges, like the progressive activists or the devoted conservatives. You want to be in that middle ground, willing to engage and not trying to shut down. That’s where you want to have a voice, and where you want to amplify the voices of others.
Explore the series so far
- Ten years on, have we moved Beyond Trafficking and Slavery?
Joel Quirk, Cameron Thibos and Ella Cockbain - What helps practitioners listen to their critics?Nick Grono with Joel Quirk
- We know how to identify exploitation. Now we need to stop itKate Roberts
- Labour rights won’t make criminal gangs go away
Marika McAdam - Twenty years of slow progress: Is anti-trafficking changing?Borislav Gerasimov
- Can progressives re-capture anti-trafficking from the right?Dina Haynes
- Why do anti-trafficking donors fund their critics?Ryan Heman
- The UN’s missed chance to lead on anti-traffickingMike Dottridge
- Law enforcement alone will never stop modern slavery
Klára Skřivánková - Mistakes happen in anti-trafficking. We must learn from themErin Williamson
- How US funding built a brittle economy in anti-trafficking
Chris Ash, Sophie Otiende, Allen Kiconco - County lines: an ‘appalling failure of child protection’
SPACE (Stop & Prevent Adolescent Criminal Exploitation) - Global inequality is the World Bank’s elephant in the roomAlf Gunvald Nilsen
- Do forced labour bans protect workers in supply chains?Judy Fudge
- Are grooming gangs the far right’s golden goose?Louise Raw
- We can't keep ignoring human trafficking in warJulia Muraszkiewicz
- Could anti-trafficking survive without victims to rescue?Hannah Lewis
