60% of adults referred to Home Office as possible slavery victims cannot access support

New analysis from Justice & Care has revealed that six out of ten of adults referred as possible modern slavery victims in the UK cannot access support, following changes to the Home Office’s system that require victims to offer more proof that they’ve been exploited. 

Overall, negative decisions at the Reasonable Grounds decision stage for the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) have jumped from 10% to around 50% since the Home Office changed the requirements in 2023. 

This raises concerns over whether traumatised people who have suffered brutal exploitation are regularly missing out on specialist support like safe accommodation, financial assistance, legal aid and healthcare – not because they aren’t victims but simply because they haven’t provided enough immediate evidence. 

Other groups of possible victims receiving disproportionate levels of negative decisions include those reporting modern slavery that happened outside the UK, those referred by government agencies like UK Visas and Immigration, and those whose cases are decided by the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA).  

Our research prompts questions about why certain groups are disproportionately affected by negative decisions, the impact of these on potential victims and their access to support and how it might affect prosecution of offenders. Justice & Care is urging the government to look again at the policy in the consultation on identifying victims that the Home Office is due to launch in the coming weeks.   

The NRM is a framework in the UK for identifying and supporting potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, administered by the Single Competent Authority (SCA), part of the Home Office.  

The ‘reasonable grounds’ stage assesses whether there is a rational basis for believing someone may be a victim, following referral from a First Responder Organisation. If someone gets a positive decision at this stage, they are entitled at least 30 days of support but a negative decision means they cannot have access to this assistance from the government.  

More negative decisions are now due to ‘insufficient information to meet the required proof’. The evidence required may include travel records, witness statements or public information about modern slavery trends in a particular country. 

Our analysis shows that adults have been most affected by the recent changes; they now make up about 85% of all negative decisions and 90% when that negative decision is due to a lack of evidence. This is higher than we would have expected given the number of adults in the system and higher than before the policy changed.  

Around 60% of the adults referred into the NRM now get a negative decision compared to only about 1 in 10 (12%) before the requirements changed.  That is a lot of adults potentially left without support for their recovery, putting them at risk of re-exploitation as well as ongoing trauma and health problems.    

There is likely overlap between them and the other groups receiving disproportionate levels of negative decisions. More adults report exploitation outside the UK, and these victims are more likely to be referred by government agencies and have their cases decided by the IECA. However, more investigation is needed.  

We cannot tell from the NRM data what happened to people who received a negative decision.  Nor does the data explain why these groups are disproportionately impacted, but it raises significant concern.   

The findings suggest that the current policy is not only failing to protect victims but may also be undermining efforts to prosecute traffickers, as victims without support are far less likely to engage with law enforcement.  

Louise Gleich, Justice & Care’s Policy Research and Advocacy Lead, said: ‘Of course, it is right that we have a robust process that can identify if anyone is referred to the system incorrectly, but it must not be at the expense of genuine victims.  

‘The forthcoming government consultation on victim identification should consider whether the system is making unreasonable demands for information that traumatised people are unable to provide.’ 

You can read the new issue brief in full here.