programmes is commonly cited as a major obstacle. Even when reintegration services are available, they may not be accessible to victims located outside larger towns or capital cities. In addition, many reintegration programmes are residence-based, requiring that victims stay in shelters that are often removed from their families and communities. Both of these factors discourage victims from participating in reintegration programmes.321 Reintegration programmes may also not be appropriate for dealing with victims from diverse backgrounds and with different needs, including both male and female victims and victims from ethnic or religious minorities. A lack of longer-term reintegration programmes has also been noted as an obstacle to effective reintegration. Other problems include a lack of trained and dedicated staff and resources for conducting reintegration programmes. An additional barrier to the successful implementation of reintegration programmes is a lack of co-operation between victim support agencies, as communication and information-sharing failures between and within government agencies, NGOs and international organizations hamper their effective co-operation and collaboration.322 Moreover, reintegration assistance programmes are often developed and implemented in an ad-hoc way and without the benefit of agreed standards, protocols and models. This contributes to a lack of consistency and quality in the provision of services.323 Moreover, effective reintegration can be compromised by the stigmatization of returnees as “victims of trafficking”. Research has confirmed the importance of respecting victims’ right to privacy and ensuring that they retain control over information about them throughout the reintegration process.324 The problems of discrimination and stigmatization affect not only their ability to reintegrate socially, but can also compromise their economic integration, causing them to struggle to obtain employment or establish their own businesses.325 In some cases, the receipt of reintegration assistance may increase the risk of stigmatization and discrimination, as it can draw attention to the victim’s trafficking experience, and may generate feelings of resentment among victims regarding the provision of assistance.326 For this reason, some states 321 Surtees, Listening to Victims, op. cit., note 77, p. 46; Rebecca Surtees, “Re/integration of trafficked persons: how can our work be more effective”, Issues paper 1, King Baudouin Foundation and the Nexus Institute, 2008, page 20; Interviews with the NGO APRAMP (Asociación para la Prevención, Reinserción y Atención de la Mujer Prostituida) and the IOM. 322  Victim service organizations also report a lack of understanding among state agency employees about their mandate for the reintegration of victims, and a lack of willingness to take responsibility for victims of trafficking. Some officials responsible for providing victim support services do not have the necessary skills for implementing this particular mandate (see Surtees, Listening to Victims, op. cit., note 77, p. 29). 323  Ibid, p. 46. 324  See Self-Empowerment Program for Migrant Women (SEPOM), ‘Trafficked’ Identities as a Barrier to Community Reintegration: Five Stories of Women Rebuilding Lives and Resisting Categorisation, GAATW Feminist Participatory Action Research Series (Bangkok: GAATW, 2010). 325  Surtees, “Re/integration of trafficked persons”, op. cit., note 322, p. 19. 326  Interview with the NGO APRAMP (Asociación para la Prevención, Reinserción y Atención de la Mujer Prostituida), the NGO Vagalume and the IOM, December 2008. Part 2: Explanatory Report to the Principles 83