Coordinating the government response to human trafficking in the Netherlands

RAND Europe conducted expert roundtables to examine challenges in the Dutch response to human trafficking and explore the potential role of a national coordinator in strengthening national governance and coordination.

Graphic with a group of people scattered under a large Netherlands flag

Image by bakhtiarzein/Adobe Stock

What is the issue?

Trafficking in human beings (THB) is a complex crime that involves a wide range of actors across the justice, security, care and migration domains. In the Netherlands, responsibilities for prevention, victim support, investigation and prosecution are spread across national, regional and local levels, resulting in significant variation in priorities, capacity and ways of working between regions. Experts signal that this fragmentation can slow decision making, hinder information exchange and lead to unequal protection for victims.

Concerns about the lack of clear national coordination have been raised in the Dutch Parliament and are reinforced by European obligations, including the requirement for EU member states to appoint a national anti-trafficking coordinator. Against this backdrop, there is a need for better insight into where coordination breaks down in practice, what can be improved within existing structures, and what added value a national coordinator could offer within the Dutch administrative system.

How did we help?

Commissioned by the Dutch Research and Data Centre (WODC), RAND Europe conducted a concise, practice-oriented study to gather expert knowledge from across the field. The aim was to map current governance arrangements, identify key bottlenecks at different policy levels, and explore realistic options for strengthening national coordination.

The study combined three elements: a targeted review of recent Dutch and international literature and policy documents; two expert roundtables with professionals from policy, implementation, supervision and the social sector; and a small number of supplementary interviews with key national stakeholders. The roundtables focused first on identifying bottlenecks in policy, finance, investigation and prosecution, and shelter and care, and then on discussing potential solutions, including the possible role, mandate and positioning of the national anti-trafficking coordinator.

What did we find?

The study found that the Dutch approach to human trafficking operates within a complex constellation of actors, with no formally established, central coordination mechanism. While national programmes and partnerships exist, their role is largely facilitative, and there are few binding frameworks or minimum standards. As a result, practices differ widely between regions and municipalities, and continuity often depends on individual professionals rather than on institutional arrangements.

Key bottlenecks identified by experts include unclear governance and role divisions across levels of government, fragmented and often uncertain funding, shortages of specialised expertise, and persistent difficulties in information sharing. These challenges are especially acute in the areas of shelter and care, where limited capacity and decentralised responsibilities lead to delays and unequal access to support.

Experts also emphasised that many improvements are already possible without changes to the system, for example by strengthening existing partnerships, clarifying mandates, scaling up effective pilots and improving national guidance. A national coordinator could add value by increasing coherence, promoting continuity and providing clearer national direction, provided the role is well embedded, clearly defined and complementary to existing responsibilities.

What can be done?

Based on expert input, the study points to several practical directions for strengthening governance and coordination without redesigning the entire system. These include clustering expertise and capacity at regional level, more structural involvement of national partners in regional platforms, clearer role definitions and minimum national standards, and stronger monitoring of implementation and outcomes. National guidelines, model agreements and practical decision tools may further help improve information exchange.

Experts see particular potential in reinforcing existing national programmes and in scaling up proven initiatives in shelter, care and investigation. A national coordinator could play a connecting, agenda‑setting and monitoring role by developing a multi‑year national strategy, supporting regional cooperation, maintaining an overview of shelter capacity, and helping to clarify governance and accountability. To be effective, however, such a role would need sufficient authority and resources, and a clear separation from independent monitoring functions.