Like many areas in the UK, Greater Manchester (GM) faces significant challenges related to modern slavery and human trafficking (MSHT), especially where these intersect with homelessness and the migration and asylum systems. In response, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and partners set up Programme Challenger, which is GM’s partnership approach to addressing serious and organised crime, including MSHT. GMCA commissioned researchers at The University of Manchester to review their work. In this article, Jon Davies explores the challenges faced by organisations addressing MSHT in Greater Manchester in order to support them in ‘joining the dots’ of their work.

• In 2024-25, there were 1,023 potential victims of MSHT in Greater Manchester, which has steadily increased from 549 in 2020-21.
• The MSHT partnership work in Greater Manchester has strong foundations but there are areas for improvement.
• Stakeholders at a collective and strategic level should set a clear vision and strengthen governance, designate specific MSHT roles, and work more closely with the private sector.

Providing the context

MSHT is a deeply embedded and evolving challenge within GM and beyond. It intersects with issues of homelessness, migration, drug and alcohol use, and exploitation in the workplace. Addressing MSHT requires coordinated action across multiple sectors, including local authorities, police, health services, voluntary and community organisations, and increasingly the private sector. Since 2012, Programme Challenger has been GM’s partnership response to serious and organised crime, through which a significant part of the city-region’s existing MSHT partnership work has developed.

Our new report ‘A review of Greater Manchester’s partnership approach to modern slavery and human trafficking (MSHT)’, which GMCA commissioned, reviews the strengths and areas of development for MSHT partnerships across the city-region. The review draws on a survey, interviews, and social network analysis that included statutory, voluntary, and community partners. We surveyed 35 organisations and conducted interviews with 38 individuals from backgrounds including local government, law enforcement, NGOs/charities, and the health sector. Importantly, a lived experience consultant was recruited to ensure that a victim-survivor perspective was grounded in the review process and the final report.

While many aspects of the review were positive, including a relatively well-connected MSHT partnerships network and perceptions of constructive working environments across the MSHT, homelessness, and migration and asylum spaces, there were several suggested areas for development.

Governance, vision, and coordination challenges

Greater Manchester’s MSHT partnerships are characterised by goodwill but lack an overarching strategy or shared vision. Without clear governance, coordination can depend too heavily on individuals’ enthusiasm and relationships. When key people move roles, progress can stall.

This lack of formalised governance leads to duplication and missed opportunities for learning across the ten local authorities. Several contributors described a ‘silo mentality’ and ‘firefighting’, where different organisations focus on their immediate priorities rather than collective, longer-term outcomes. Others noted that no one at a more collective/strategic level is currently setting clear, measurable goals, such as reducing MSHT or improving survivor outcomes. Establishing a shared sense of purpose that is supported by agreed governance arrangements was seen as essential for consistent good practice.

Capacity constraints and resource pressures

Across the sector, services are under significant strain. Funding for specialist support is limited, and the capacity of frontline staff to identify and respond to MSHT cases varies widely. In 2022, only 13% of children turning 18 and identified as potential MSHT victims were referred for support under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract, and only 6% ended up receiving support.  In our review, organisations reported challenges in providing accommodation, healthcare, and mental health support for survivors, and limited capacity to dispute negative decisions within the National Referral Mechanism.

These pressures contribute to inconsistent survivor experiences across GM. Some victims receive well-coordinated, trauma-informed care, while others encounter fragmented pathways, long delays, or lack of clarity about available support. The review highlights the importance of moving from reactive crisis responses to a sustainable approach that supports recovery and reintegration.

Structural barriers and a complex policy landscape

Stakeholders identified national policy and legislative changes (for example, Nationality and Borders Act 2022; Illegal Migration Act 2023) as significant obstacles. The conflation of MSHT with irregular migration and organised immigration crime has created confusion about responsibilities and eligibility for support. This has made it harder for professionals to identify victims and for survivors to trust statutory services.

At the same time, existing housing and health models do not always account for survivors’ long-term needs. Many participants stressed that the journey to recovery begins (and does not end) when a person leaves exploitation. Without stable accommodation, psychological support, and community integration, survivors are vulnerable to re-exploitation.

Untapped potential of the private sector

The private sector is seen as an important but underutilised partner in addressing MSHT. Engagement is often one-directional and focused on awareness-raising or compliance, rather than on joined up working to prevent exploitation.

Businesses could play a far more active role, especially around data-sharing, ethical recruitment, and supply chain due diligence. With the development of mandatory human rights due diligence requirements, there is a growing opportunity to embed anti-MSHT principles into corporate agendas. For this to happen, public bodies need mechanisms to collaborate with businesses for prevention, enforcement, and longer-term recovery and safe employment.

Recommendations

Grounded in the need to provide a consistent, positive experience for victims and survivors, and to integrate lived experience into key aspects of work, our review sets out practical recommendations for policymakers and practitioners in Greater Manchester and beyond.

• Set a clear vision and strengthen governance: Develop a shared city-regional strategy for addressing MSHT, which is supported by transparent governance structures and measurable outcomes. A unified vision would help to align local and city-regional priorities, encourage accountability, and ensure that progress is sustained beyond individual staff changes. Such a vision should incorporate consistent victim-survivor pathways and expand the involvement of lived experience consultants in project design and delivery, thereby promoting a more robust victim-survivor-oriented framework.
• Identify and engage named individuals to support MSHT coordination: Each local authority should designate a specific MSHT internal lead and/or external-facing single point of contact responsible for linking up services, ensuring continuity, and embedding anti-MSHT work into workplace cultures. This would reduce reliance on informal relationships, promote consistency across Greater Manchester, and enable quicker responses to emerging issues for the benefit of survivors
• Develop a stronger MSHT partnership with the private sector: Establish structured forums for collaboration between public bodies, voluntary organisations, and businesses to share intelligence, build capacity, develop safe employment pathways for survivors, and reduce exploitation risks within local economies and supply chains. Potentially re-launching the Greater Manchester Modern Slavery Business Network is a useful first step.

A Review of Greater Manchester’s Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking (MSHT) Partnerships Approach was authored by Dr Jonathan Davies, Dr Tomas Diviak, Celine Giese, Professor Rose Broad, Professor David Gadd.